1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- Appellants Muhammad Usman Shah and others filed a suit for title and, possession against Muhammad Husain and others, respondents herein, which was finally decreed by this Court. Subsequently the decree was duly executed.
2. ' After some time a dispute about possession arose between the same parties which led to proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. The police submitted a report under sections 107, 145 and 150 of Cr.P.C. In which it was stated that the Patwari had incorporated in the Revenue Record that decree-holders Muhammad Yunus Shah, Usman Shah and others were put in possession of the land in dispute through warrant of possession issued by a Civil Court but there is a serious disputed between Muhammad Husain and others from the judgment-debtor's side and Muhammad Usman Shah from the decree-holder's side. It was stated that both of them had already approached the Civil Court. It was stated in the report that on the day of filing of the report Muhammad Hussain and others wanted to cultivate the land in dispute through a tractor. On the other hand it was claimed by Muhammad Usman Shah that according to the Revenue Record he was in possession of the land and the other party wanted to change this factual position with the help of other persons. The police stated that there was apprehension that a serious cognizable offence may be committed, therefore, proceedings for breach of peace under section 145, Cr.P.C. And allied sections had become necessary. It was prayed that the land may be attached. During the proceedings Sarwar Shah, Zaib-un-Nisa and subsequently Muhammad Abdullah moved applications that they may also be allowed to join the proceedings. This application was accepted. They were decree-holders along with Muhammad Usman Shah and others and by becoming a party, wanted that they may be put in possession separately from Usman Shah and others.
3. ' After lengthy proceedings the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that Muhammad Hussain and others the judgment-debtors against whom civil suit had been decided, were never in fact dispossessed from the land in dispute and at the time of execution of the decree only paper transaction took place while in fact the possession remained as before. In light of this conclusion the learned Magistrate ordered that all the decree-holder should approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for proper execution of the decree and to get possession through proceedings of the Civil Court. Muhammad Hussain and others, the judgment-debtors did not challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate. One set of decree-holders, Sarwar Shah and others, also did not challenge the order. However, Muhammad Usman Shah and others filed a revision petition before the High Court which was decided through the order under appeal.
4. ' In the revision petition there were two sets of respondents. Muhammad Hussain and others, against whom the suit had been decreed by this Court, stated before the High Court that they had no quarrel with the decree passed in favor of the decree-holders and that they were prepared to hand over the possession through legal process. However, they submitted that possession was never delivered to Muhammad Usman Shah in pursuance of the decree. The other set of respondents consisted of Sarwar Shah and others, the co-decree-holders. Their stand before the High Court was that as a result of the decree passed by this Court they did not obtain possession to which they were entitled under law. They submitted that Muhammad Usman Shah has a share of only 1/3rd and he was not entitled to take possession of the entire land decreed by the Court.
5. ' As stated earlier, the learned Magistrate held that physical possession still remained with judgment-debtors. This finding has been set aside by the High Court which has found that possession had passed to the decree-holders. So far as this finding is concerned, it has attained finality because it has not been challenged by anyone. The other set of respondents, Sarwar Shah and others, who are duly represented in this appeal, also did not file petition for leave to appeal to challenge this finding.
6. ' Dealing with the other question as to who was in possession the learned Judge expressed the following views:-- "I agree to this extent that delivery of possession to Usman Shah shall not be deemed to be the passing of possession to him alone. If one of the decree-holder gets the possession on spot, it will be presumed that all the decree-holders had obtained the possession."
7. ' In the portion of the judgment reproduced above there is a finding that possession was delivered to Usman Shah at the time of execution of the decree. This finding has also not been challenged before this Court and has attained finality. The dispute in this appeal, therefore, relates to the following decision of the High Court:- "The possession obtained by Usman Shah in pursuance of decree shall be treated as possession of all the decree-holders unless it is proved that other co-sharers discontinued their possession or they were afterwards dispossessed. They cannot be deprived of their possession. The restoration of possession by Magistrate after conclusion of proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. Was to be made in favor of all the co-sharers who are holding the decree."
8. ' In light of view extracted above the learned Judge in the High Court passed an order that possession of the attached land shall be restored to Usman Shah and others jointly who are the decree-holders.
9. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who addressed detailed arguments but, in our view, due to the findings which have attained finality there is not much dispute left in this case.
10. After having given the finding that possession at the time of execution of the decree was made to Usman Shah the learned Judge was not right in passing an order that after termination of attachment possession will be restored to Usman Shah and others, all the decree-holders, jointly.
11. While it is correct that possession of Usman Shah is possession of all the decree-holders but possession taken by way of attachment under section 145 of Cr.P.C. Has to be given back to the person from whom it was taken if it is found that he was in possession. Subsection (6) of section 145, Cr.P.C. Clearly states that if the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was in possession of the land he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law. It is also provided in subsection (6) that the Magistrate shall forbid all disputes of such possession till such eviction. In light of this provision the only order which can be passed in the case was that Usman Shah, acting on behalf of all the decree-holders, shall continue to be in possession unless he is evicted therefrom in due process of law.
12. The direction given by the High Court that possession shall be restored to all the decree-holders jointly is not covered by section 145, Cr.P.C. Because possession was not taken from all the decree- holders. It may be noted that in the judgment under appeal the learned Judge observed as follows in para. 6 of the judgment:-- "Sarwar Shah and others who are also a party in this case and were decree-holders stated that possession was not obtained by them. They also claim that as co-owner of the land they have right to get the possession of this land."
13. ' A perusal of the concise statement filed by Sarwar Shah and others also shows that they did not claim that they were in possession when attachment was ordered or at any time before that what they state may be usefully reproduced:-- "(6) That a decree for possession of 17 Canals and 7 Marla was passed in favor of appellant No,1 and respondents Nos.6 to 10. This decree was executed. Appellant No,1 has the share of only 1/8th and is not entitled to the entire land decree. The remaining 7/8th share belongs to respondents Nos.8 to 10, therefore, only 2 Canals and 3 Marla of land is the share of Usman Shah and others and Usman Shah alone has no right to occupy the remaining possession of the land respondents Nos.6 to 10 as decree-holder of the said land have a right to get the possession of the said land.
(7) That Usman Shah appellant is not entitled to the land is excess of his share, therefore, the entire land cannot be handed over to h1m."
14. It is clear from the foregoing that Sarwar Shah and others want that all the co-sharers may be put into possession according to their shares. This is not within the ambit of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C.
15. Even otherwise, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Relate to breach of peace. In the present case, breach of peace was apprehended between Usman Shah, on the one hand, and the judgment-debtors on the other. Therefore, no order can be passed about Sarwar Shah and others.
16. ' The judgment of the High Court is in favor of the appellants who have filed this appeal only to challenge the following direction of the High Court,- ".... It is hereby ordered that possession of land attached shall be restored to Usman Shah and others jointly who are the decree-holders."
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this direction is vacated and it is instead ordered that appellant Usman Shah shall be put back in possession of the C attached land.