This revision has arisen out of proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C.

The subject-matter of dispute in this case is a shop which is part of a building known ad House No. 72, Zero Road, Allahabad. The entire building belongs to the applicant. According to him, he had let out the disputed shop to one Imtiyaz. It appears that this Imtiyaz in his turn sub-let it to one Ram Subhag Gupta. The applicant filed a suit (Suit No. 631 of 1960) against Imtiyaz and kam Subhag Gupta for their ejectment in the Court of Munsif (West) Allahabad. That suit was decreed on 9-4-63. Imtiyaz went up in appeal, but his appeal was dismissed on 4-10-63. After the appeal of Imtiyaz was dismissed, opposite party Paras Nath Tripathi came in the picture. He started saying that he was the owner of the disputed shop by adverse possession and the applicant has no concern with it. He even filed a suit (Suit No. 63 of 1964) against the applicant and prayed for an injunction to restrain him from taking possession of the disputed shop from Imtiyaz in execution of the decree which he had obtained against him. His suit was dismissed by the trial court on 20-2-70. He went up in appeal (Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1970) and his appeal also met the same fate. A second appeal (Second Appeal No. 113 of 1973) filed by him in this court also bore no fruit and it was dismissed in limine. The applicant then put his decree in execution passed in Suit No. 631 of 1960 referred to above. The court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to execute his decree. It is said that the Advocate Commissioner (Sri V. P. Singh) went to the shop in question in the forenoon of 16-10-71 and delivered possession of the disputed shop to the applicant after breaking open the lock that was found put on it. The case of the applicant is that after taking possession of the shop he looked it and went away. Thereafter, on the same day, in the after-noon, the opposite party broke his lock and took y. possession of the shop. As soon as the applicant came to know about it, he reported the matter to the police. On the next day also the applicant made another report in regard to this very matter. All this led to bad blood between the parties and on 21-11-71 they even quarrelled with each other. A report of this quarrel also was lodged at P. S. Kotwali. Matter came to such a pass that there was apprehension of breach of peace. The applicant, therefore, moved City Magistrate, Allahabad to initiate proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. regarding the disputed shop. The City Magistrate called for report from P. S. Kotwali. The report submitted by the police also showed that there was a dispute between the parties regarding possession over the disputed shop and that dispute was such as was likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace. The City Magistrate, therefore, immediately took action under section 145 Cr. P. C. and passed a preliminary order on 9-12-71. He also ordered for the attachment of the disputed shop. It appears that before the shop could be attached, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 13-12-71, dropped the proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. as he felt that apprehension for breach of peace qua the disputed shop had come to an end. The applicant went up in revision against the order dropping the proceedings. The revisional court heard the parties and was of the view that the order passed by the Magistrate dropping the proceedings under section

145 Cr. P. C. was improper and it, therefore, vide order dated 2-5-72, made a reference to the High Court with the recommendation that the order dated 13-12-71 passed by the Magistrate dropping the proceeding be quashed. This court, vide its judgment dated 23-11-73, accepted the reference, set aside the order dated 13-12-71 passed by the Magistrate and remanded the case to the court of the Magistrate with the direction that he should proceed to decide the case in accordance with law from the stage on which the preliminary order dated 9-12-7