- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1990 by Sri Lekha Singh, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, allowing the revision filed by the opposite party No. I Pritam Singh against the order dated 18-1-1988 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puranpur in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as appear from the record, are that on appli cation was moved by the applicant Pritam Singh claiming his possession over plot No. 37 area 7. 50 acres and alleging that there was apprehension of breach of peace as the opposite parties Mahanga Singh and their three sons, who are the present applicants, were trying to take forcible possession over the same, The learned Magistrate called report from S. O. concerned and after that passed orders under Section 145 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. Both the parties filed their written statements and thereafter led oral and docu mentary evidence. The learned Magistrate held that the second party, Mahanga Singh was in possession over the land in dispute. The first party Pritara Singh filed revision against that order which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. He set aside the order by the learned Magistrate and directed him to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In this revision the contention by the revisionists is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not have re-interpreted and reconsidered the evi dence on record nor could have set aside the finding by the learned Magistrate which was a finding of fact. It is also asserted that the finding by the learned Magistrate was correct and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was wrong in setting aside the same and in observing that there was sufficient evidence to show that the first party Pritam Singh was in possession over the land in dispute.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the opposite party No. 1 and have also considered the material on record. In a revision against the order of the Magistrate under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the Revisional Court cannot, of course, re-weigh the evidence and reconsider the same in order to come to a different conclusion. The finding on the question of possession is obviously a finding of fact. However, in case the Magistrate concerned of mits to consider some important evidence or ignores relevant evidence then, in such a case, the revisional Court can interfere and direct the Magistrate to reconsider the entire evidence. In the present case, the revisional Court has referred to some material evidence which the Magistrate concerned has not considered. One of this piece of evidence is a sale- deed executed in the year 1971 by the recorded owner Smt. Priti Kaur, who is the wile of revisionist, Mahanga Singh, in favour of one Smt. Gyan Kaur. The present opposite party, Pritam Singh asserts that Smt. Gyan Kaur was his wire and after her death, he became the owner of the land in question Reliance is placed on the recitation in the said deed that the possession over the land has been handed over to the purchaser. The second piece of evidence, which according to the revisional Court was not considered was that in the year 1971 Mahanga Singh himself had stated in the ceiling proceedings that he had no concern at all with the land in dispute. Then there were mutation proceedings in respect of this land and which were initiated in the year 1983-84 by Sri Pritam Singh in which order of mutation was passed on 10-8-1987. An application for the restora tion of that case was moved but the same was rejected on 27-1-1988. An appeal was filed against the order by Smt. Priti Kaur but the same was also dismissed. It is alleged on behalf of 'the present opposite party No. 1 that the mutation order was also ignored by the learned Magistrate, who did not also properly consider the other evidence produced by him. It has been argued on behalf of the present applicants that a revision had been filed against the mutation order and the operation of the order by the authority concerned allowing the mutation in the name of Pritam Singh has been stayed. This fact has, however, been disputed by the Counsel for the opposite party, Pritam Singh who had stated that the Commissioner has merely stayed the order dated 27-1-1988 by which the application for restoration moved on behalf of Smt. Priti Kaur was rejected. However, the effect of the mutation order has also not been considered by the learned Magistrate as has been asserted on behalf of the opposite party No. 1.;