JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in revision whereby the order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the S.D.M. Nimbahera in Case No. 5/2001 has been affirmed. The learned S.D.M. directed attachment of the property in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question through a registered sale deed. She purchased the property from one Rukhsana in 2005 and is in possession thereof. Thus he submits that the direction given by the S.D.M. to attach the property is absolutely without jurisdiction. He submits that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.c. and thus the order passed behind the back of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Vipin Kumar and Smt. Shashikala had purchased the property from the original Khatedar Dhanna way back in the year 1998. They submit that the installments of bank loan towards the said property was repaid by Vipin Kumar and Shashikala. Dhanna did not execute the sale deed registered in favour of Vipin Kumar and Shashikala on which a civil suit for specific performance was filed by them way back in the year 1999 which is pending consideration before the concerned court. Learned counsel submit that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated way back in the year 2001 and the petitioner at her own risk purchased the property in dispute in the year 2005 during the pendency of the litigation. They thus argue that there was no requirement of the petitioner being heard in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. They, therefore, pray that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record as well as the orders impugned. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in the year 2005. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated way back in the year 2001. Thus, if at all the petitioner chose to purchase the property in question, then it was at her own risk. 6. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in the year 2005. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated way back in the year 2001. Thus, if at all the petitioner chose to purchase the property in question, then it was at her own risk. 6. Resultantly, it cannot be said to be that the order passed by the learned S.D.M. suffers from any illegality or irregularity because the S.D.M. was having the genuine apprehension regarding breach of peace for possession of the disputed property and thus he rightly attached the property till the civil suit is decided. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the orders impugned do not call for any interference in exercise of inherent powers of this Court.Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is rejected. Record be sent back.Petition dismissed. *******