( 1. ) This criminal revision is by Party No. 2 challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2. ) Two points are urged on behalf of Party No. 2, namely, (i) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in error in appreciating the evidence on record and coming to unwarranted conclusions; and (ii) that, in any case, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in arriving at a finding contrary to the one recorded by the Civil Court.

( 3. ) After going through the record, I am satisfied that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not commit any error in appreciation of the evidence on record. The claim of Party No. 2 that it was in possession of the property right from 1953 till the preliminary order was passed is shown to be false by the notice published by it in an Urdu paper,The Daily Nadeem dated 29-3-1967. A perusal of that notice clearly shows that Saeed Mohd. Khan was already in possession of the property, though in his capacity as guardian of his sons and daughter (members of Party No. 2), and that he was abusing his position and possession and was disposing of the property so as to defeat the cl