JUDGMENT AND ORDER Param Kumar Phukan, J. - The opposite party, herein, as 1st party filed a petition before the learned Executive Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu under Section 145 Cr.P.C. alleging therein that regarding possession over a land described in the schedule of the petition, there was likelihood of breach of peace between the 1st party and the 2nd party. The learned Magistrate acting on the petition called for a police report and accordingly police submitted a report. A proceeding was drawn up vide M.R. Case No. 39/1996 and the land described in the schedule of the petition was attached as per provision of Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. Both parties adduced evidence oral as well as documentary and the learned Magistrate after satisfying himself that the land had been in possession of the 2nd party declared possession in his favour. Against the order of the learned Magistrate appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate and declared possession in favour of the appellant 1st party. Being aggrieved the 2nd Party has filed this revision for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. 2. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner. None appeared for the opposite parties. 3. It is contended inter-alia by the petitioner that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner passed the order solely on the ground that the petitioner was not examined as a witness in the case which clearly reveals non application of mind on his part. Some anomalies in the schedule of the land was also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It is further contended that the description of the land given by the witnesses is different from the land described in the schedule of the petition and the Appellate Court without going through the materials available on record arbitrarily passed the order. 4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention, I have gone through the impugned judgments of the learned Courts below and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. 5. 4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention, I have gone through the impugned judgments of the learned Courts below and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. 5. It transpires from the Appellate judgment that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the learned Magistrate primarily on the ground that the revision petitioner being the 2nd party in the original proceeding has failed to examine himself as a witness in the case claiming his possession over the land. The dispute between the parties is regarding possession of 2 kathas 9 lachas of land and the boundary of the land depicted in the petition filed by the 1st party is as follows: North :- Sarkari Land South :- Land of Ram Murat Agrahari East :- Land of Shri Robin Handique West :- Land of Shri Mihiram Gogoi 6. The patta number and dag number has been mentioned in the petition. The judgment of the learned Magistrate reveals that the total area of land was 4 kathas 9 lachas out of which 2 kathas was sold to the 2nd party and the 2nd party taking advantage tried to grab the entire plot of land which compelled the 1st party to file the petition before the learned Executive Magistrate. 7. From the judgments of the Appellate Court and the learned Magistrate, it emerges that the 2nd party although claimed to be in possession of the disputed land has not adduced any evidence in the case. Since he claimed possession, he ought to have examined himself as a witness but he failed to do so as his prayer was rejected. 8. It transpires from the case record that the 2nd party filed a petition before the Court praying for allowing him to adduce evidence. But it appears that his petition was rejected on the ground that he has filed written statement and it was available with the record. The ground given by the learned Magistrate is not at all satisfactory and he ought to have given opportunity to the 2nd party to examine himself as a witness in the case, since he claimed to be in possession of the land. Since the 2nd party claimed possession over the land, it was incumbent on the part of the Court to examine him as witness but the opportunity was denied to him. Since the 2nd party claimed possession over the land, it was incumbent on the part of the Court to examine him as witness but the opportunity was denied to him. Dispute over possession of land likely to cause breach of peace is the sine-qua-non for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 9. Once the Magistrate is satisfied that there existed a dispute which was likely to cause breach of peace between the parties claiming possession, it is the duty of the Court after assuming jurisdiction to examine the parties to the case. But opportunity has been denied to the 2nd party petitioner to examine himself and because of his non-examination, the Appellate Court came to the finding that he was not in possession of the land. The finding was not based on sound reasoning and is violative of the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., which is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to afford opportunity to the petitioner 2nd party Ram Murat Agrahari to examine himself as a witness in the case and thereafter, pass order afresh. 10. The case is accordingly remanded to the Trial Court for disposal afresh. 11. With the above direction, the revision petition stands disposed of. 12. Send down the records along with the copy of the judgment for information and necessary action.