Kulwant Sahay, J.This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, recommending that an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Simastipur, dated the 27th Mar oh, 1924, in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C., may be set aside. It appears that upon a police report) proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C., were drawn up so long ago as the 25th May, 1922 in which Saatu Sahu and others were the first party and Nathuni Thakur and others were the second party. The dispute related to about 13 bighas of land of which each party claimed to be in cultivating possession. The first party claimed this land as part of his raiyati holding, while the second party, who is the landlord, claimed it as being in his khas cultivation. The proceeding was subsequently amended upon the report of the police and a fresh proceeding was drawn up on the 7fch August, 1922. On the 30th August, 1922 both parties appeared and certain other persons were added as parties. Written statements were filed by the parties on the 7th October, 1922. Thereafter it was found necessary to have a map of the locality prepared and an Amin was deputed who submitted his report and a map on the 13th December, 1922. The case was actually taken up for hearing on the 10uh February, 1923 when certain witnesses on behalf of the first party were examined and then the case was postponed and was again taken up on the 22nd February, 1923 when some further witnesses were examined on behalf of the first party. The case was then postponed for one month and some of the witnesses for the second party were examined on the 22nd March, 1923. There was then another adjournment and the case was taken up on the 18th April, 1923 when soma more witnesses for the second party were examined. There was a fresh adjournment up to the 7th May, 1923 when a few more witnesses for the second party were examined and then the case was taken up on the 23rd May, 1923 when some more witnesses for the second party wore examined and then the case was adjourned to the 4th of June, 1923 for argument. On this date the witnesses for the second party were all examined, but it does not appear from the order sheet whether arguments were heard, but apparently arguments were heard and then judgment was evidently reserved. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate however forgot all about the case until the 27th March, 1924 when he was under orders of transfer and then for the first time ha recollected that he had not passed any final order in the case. Accordingly on the 27th March, 1924 he disposed of the case with the following order.

I find I passed no final order in this case. As so long has elapsed, I do not think any breach of the peace is likely. I therefore Strike the case off.

2. Against this order the second party went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and he has made the present reference to this Court recommending that this order of the 27th March, 1924 may be set aside as being without jurisdiction.

3. I regret to say that the proceeding in this case shows lamentable carelessness on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The case was allowed to hang on from August, 1922 when amended proceedings were drawn up, up to June, 1923, Witnesses were examined on certain dates and then the case was postponed from time to time to examine further witnesses. It is, highly desirable that once the hearing is commenced and witnesses are examined the hearing should go on from day to day untill all the evidence is taken and argument is heard; then order should be passed as soon as possible. In this case the witnesses were examined after long intervals and although argument was heard, yet no order was passed for about ten months. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate apparently forgot all about the case until he was reminded of it when he was going away on transfer. He then hurriedly disposed of the case with the order of the 27th March, 1924 quoted above.

4. Now, this order is not justified by any provision of the law. u/s 145 Sub-section (1) when a Magistrate is satisfied from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water, or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Now the order contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 142 was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 7th August, 1922, and on that date he was apparently satisfied that a dispute existed which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Then under Sub-section (4) of Section 145 the Magistrate has to peruse the statements put in by the parties, hear the partie3 and receive all evidence that may be produced before him: he has to consider the effect of such evidence and if possible to decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned, that is the order contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 145 in such possession of the said subject. Clause (5) provides that nothing shall preclude any party required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as is contemplated by Sub-section (1) exists or has existed, and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his order under Sub-section (1) and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub Section (1) shall be final. Here no party appeared before the Magistrate and represented to him that there was no dispute which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Indeed there was absolutely no material before him from which be could come to the conclusion that no likelihood of a breach of the peace existed at the time he passed the order of the 27th March, 1924. Sub-section (6) of Section 145 provides that if the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the first proviso to Sub-section (4) be treated as being, in possession of the subject-matter, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law. This is the final order to be passed in a proceeding u/s 145. Here no order has been passed either under Sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 145. The only other way to terminate a proceeding u/s 145 is by an order u/s 146. These are the only three methods under the law by which a proceeding once initiated u/s 145 can be terminated. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not adopted the procedure laid down by the law. He has simply struck off the case without making any final order as contemplated by law. The order of the 27th March, 1924, is wholly illegal and must be set aside.

5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the first party that the procedure laid down in Sub-section (5) of Section 145 is not the only procedure by which a proceeding u/s 145 can be terminated, but that if the Magistrate gets information from any source whatsoever that there is no longer any apprehension of a breach of the peace, he would be entitled to drop the proceeding. That may or may not be so, but there must be some material before the Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there is no apprehension of a breach of the peace. In the present case there was absolutely no material before the Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there was no further apprehension of a breach of the peace. The reason why he struck off the case is stated by himself, viz, that a long time had elapsed and that he found that no final order had been passed in the case.

6. I am constrained to set aside the order of the 27th March, 1924, and direst that the, case be sent back to the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate of Samastipur to dispose of the proceeding in one or other of the ways as provided by law. It will be open to either party to appear before him and to show that no dispute exists and if the Magistrate is satisfied that no dispute exists or existed likely to cause a breach of the peace, it will then be open to the Magistrate to pass an order under Sub-section (5) of Section 145.