This Criminal Petition is directed against the order dated 25-4-2006 in M.C. No. 275 of 2004 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati whereby and where under the order dated 15-11-2004 passed under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. came to be vacated.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to filing of this Criminal Revision Case by 'A' party in M.C. No. 275 of 2004 are:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alipiri P.S. submitted a report before the Mandal Executive Magistrate apprehending breach of peace in respect of a dispute over an extent of Ac. 0-10 cents of land in Survey No. 20 of Tirupati Revenue Village between 'A' party and 'B' party. Thereupon the Executive Magistrate took report on file as M.C. No. 275 of 2004 and passed prohibitory order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. and directed both the parties to enter their appearance and put in their respective pleadings. Thereupon 'A' party and 'B' party entered their appearance and placed on record the respective pleadings. The learned Executive Magistrate on considering the pleadings of the parties and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties vacated the prohibitory order granted on 15-11-2004. The order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 2-4-2006 vacating the prohibitory order dated 15-11-2004 is under challenged in this Criminal Revision Case. The relevant portion of the order impugned in the Criminal Revision Case needs to be extracted and it is thus:

"The statements submitted by third parties i.e., A. Subramanyam Achary, R.P. Suresh, A. Sekhar and P. Balakrishna Reddy are that they have no connection with the suit land. Further A. Sekhar and P. Balakrishna Reddy admitted that they have withdrawn the case in D.S. No. 1519 of 2004 which was filed at the instigation of B Party only and having withdrawn, it was dismissed on 31-12-2004. It is pertinent to note that through execution proceedings in pursuance of the decree in D.S. No. 224 of 1983 and 225 of 1983, the vendors at A-Party duly obtained possession of the disputed property. Subsequently they were purchased by the A-Party through registered Sale Deeds dt. 17-02-2004 and 20-02-2004 for consideration. Apart from this in I.A. No. 2202 of 1997 in D.S. No. 1184 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, now D.S. No. 163 of 2001 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati interim injunction is granted in favour of the vendors of the A-Party and it is still in force and the same is not denied by the B Party. In view of the injunction orders granted by the Honourable Court in D.S. No. 1184 of 1997 and in D.S. No. 124 of 1994 on the file of I Additional District Munsiff, Tirupati filed by B Party's son for injunction and the same was dismissed on 17-06-1997 against one of the vendors of A-Party and another. There is a duty cast upon this Court to follow the decision of the Civil Court on the question of the possession of the property. Moreover, any proceedings u/sec. 145 of Cr. P.C. respect shall be given to the decisions and directions of competent Civil Court regarding possession. Hence, in view of the pending order of injunction and taking the circumstances stated taken into account and I declare that A-Party is in the possession of the disputed property. Accordingly disposed the above proceedings vacating the prohibitory order granted on 15-11-2004 under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C."

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Mandal Executive Magistrate has not referred to the documents filed along with the written statement and thereby erred in drawing a conclusion that 'A' party is in possession of the property in dispute. He would further submit that no opportunity was given to the petitioners after filing their written statement and no enquiry was conducted as provided under subsection 4 of Section 145 Cr. P.C. and thus order impugned in the revision case is liable