1. This is a reference against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, maintaining the order passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Mst. Amin Bai was occupying quarter No. 161-B, Unit No. 3-B, Shah Latifabad, Hyderabad. She lodged a report with the police alleging that Mst. Zohra Bai alias Fatima Sughra with the help of Safdar Hussain, Akhtar Hussain, Afsar Hussain and Akram Hussain had dispossessed her and had occupied the quarter. The police after investigation instituted proceedings under section 145, Cr. P.
3. C. Against those persons in the Court of 1st Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad and simultaneously instituted proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. Before the City Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad. The learned Additional City Magis--trate, during the pendency of the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Ordered the attachment of the quarter. Subsequently; Mushtaq who had instituted those proceedings, as it was said that there was no more apprehension of any breach of peace and, therefore, the opponents were discharged under section 119, Cr. P. C, dropped proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. This order was produced before the learned Additional City Magistrate who on the basis of this order held that since there was no apprehension of the breach of peace the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Could not be continued. He, therefore, discharged the opponents and raised the attachment but ordered that the possession of the quarter be delivered to Mst. Amin Bai. Aggrieved by the delivery of possession to Mst. Amin Bai a revision application was filed by Mst. Zuhra Bai on the ground that when the quarter was attached the was in possession of the quarter and, therefore, the possession has to be restored to her and not to Mst. Amin Bai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not accept this ground.
4. He pointed out that at the time when the quarter was sealed it was lying vacant and furthermore Mst: Zuhra Bai was not a party to the proceedings taken 'under section 145, Cr. P. C. And, therefore, ate possession of the quarter could not be delivered to her and the order passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate directing the possession of the quarter to be given to Mst. Amin Bai, was legal, valid and proper Aggrieved by this the present revision application has been filed by Mst.
5. Zuhra Bai.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be supported. Even the learned counsel for the State did not support those orders. Since the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Were dropped and no evidence was recorded the possession had robe delivered to the person who was in possession of the property at the time when it was attached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly observed that the quarter was not in possession of Mst. Zuhra Bai. His view was based on the fact that when tire quarter was attached it was lying vacant. This fact did not prove that Mst. Amin Bai was in possession of the quarter at time when it was attached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, clearly ignored the allegations made in the complaint filed by Mst. Amin Bai in which she had clearly admitted that she had beta dispossessed of the "quarter by Mst. Zuhra Bai with the assist--ance of other persons.
7. So admittedly Mst. Amin Bai was no in possession of the quarter and the possession could not delivered to her unless proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Were disposed of on merits and it was found that she has been dispossessed within the required period. Moreover, Mst. Zuhra Bai who was admittedly in possession of the quarter was not party in the proceedings under section 145, Cr.
8. P. C. And on that: account also no order could be passed dispossessing her from the quarter.
9. In the circumstances, I allow the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Additional City Magistrate. The possession be restored to Mst. Zuhra Bai.