JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 12.6.2012 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar, who while deciding revision petition, issued a direction that receiver should hand over possession to the respondent i.e. Legal heirs of Iqbal Singh. Along with the order passed by the Revisional Court below, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.5.2011, vide which, the Receiver was appointed. 2. Petitioner Shiv Singh claim that he is in possession of the land in question and the order of Magistrate appointing the Receiver was bad and furthermore the Revisional Court below, exceeded its power by issuing a direction to the Receiver to hand over the possession to the opposite party. 3. Whether it was justified to appoint Receiver was issue before the Revisional Court below. To decide this the core issue before the Court below was whether petitioner was in possession of the land in question. 4. The Court of Magistrate vide order dated 30.5.2011 had held that there is a tension between the parties regarding possession of the land and he formulated an opinion that there is apprehension that there may be breach of peace, hence, appointment of Receiver will be just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Both parties aggrieved, assailed the order of the Magistrate appointing Receiver. 6. The Revisional Court below took notice of the litigation pending between the parties. It will be apposite here lo translate following finding given by the Revisional Court below: "In this situation, when Shiv Singh came into the possession of disputed land, no satisfactory answer is given by him, rather it is said that he is in possession of the land. Regarding possession, Shiv Singh had produced reports of Canal Department and Revenue Patwari. This fact has not been accepted by Revenue Appellate Authority on the ground that report of the Patwari regarding possession was contradictory. Petitioner Shiv Singh could not clarify that after possession was given to Iqbal Singh in pursuance of the decision of the District Judge, thereafter, how he came into the possession. It seems that Shiv Singh had made an attempt to create his possession. Shiv Singh had not assailed the order dated 20.4.2004 passed by District Judge, Sriganganagar. He has also not challenged the order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It seems that Shiv Singh had made an attempt to create his possession. Shiv Singh had not assailed the order dated 20.4.2004 passed by District Judge, Sriganganagar. He has also not challenged the order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Both these authorities have not accepted possession of Shiv Singh. Considering the above facts, after affording opportunity of hearing, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is pending before Revenue authorities. It is also to be noted that District Judge, Sriganganagar, after death of Iqbal Singh had granted probate in Probate Application No. 82/2009 in favour of the successors i.e. Joginder Singh etc. on 8.1.2010. Shiv Singh had filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Section 33 of Indian Succession Act, in which he has raised his objections. In Civil Case No. 5/2010, District Judge, Sriganganagar vide order dated 19.lb2011, had rejected the claim made by Shiv Singh. The above said order was also not challenged by Shiv Singh. Whether will regarding demised land was genuine or not, no challenge was brought forward by Shiv Singh. The only dispute between the parties is pending before the Revenue Appellate Authorities." 7. The above said finding has been put to counsel, to enable him, to show documents in favour of the petitioner, from which his possession could be inferred. 8. There is no document in favour of the petitioner to raise legitimate claim regarding possession, therefore, by way of an interim relief also, the respondent could not be dis-possessed. To ward of apprehension of breach of peace, Sub Divisional Magistrate could have invoked security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. 9. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. However, it is ordered that the finding given by the Revisional Court below and noticed in this order is only limited regarding interim relief. The Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate uninfluenced by the observations made by the Revisional Court below or this Court, shall decide the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending between the parties and shall decide the matter within three months from today strictly confining itself to the evidence adduced by the parties.Petition dismissed. *******