N.S.Gupta, J. - (1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 20.11.1982 passed by Shri K.N. Singh the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal case No.s 164 of 1982 allowing the revision setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 16.8.1982 in Criminal case No. 141 of 1978 under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that there was a dispute in between the applicant revisionist and O.P. No.2 Ram Sunder regarding the possession of a shop situate in Village Khajuri, P.S. Khajuri, Distt. Ballia. Proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate who held the revisionist Chandra Shekhar to be in possession of the shop in dispute on the date of passing of the preliminary order. The first party Ram Sunder preferred a revision against the said order of the learned Magistrate before the Sessions Judge, Ballia which was heard and decided by Shri K.N. Singh the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge Ballia allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 16.8.1982 passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held first party Chandra Shekhar to be in possession over the shop in dispute. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant has preferred this revision before this Court. I have heard Shri P.N. Tiwari the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri V.B. Singh, Additional Government Advocate for the State considered their contention and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had recorded the finding of fact holding the revisionist Chandra Shekhar who was second party before him in the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code to be in possession of the shop in dispute. The said finding could not have been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. There appears to be force in the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. It was rightly held by the learned Magistrate in his judgement that though a compromise was arrived at in between the parties on 20.7.78 for vacating the shop in dispute by 22.7.78 but there was no satisfactory evidence on record to prove that the shop in question was actually vacated by the second party revisionist. When the second party revisionist was sitting over the shop in question as a tenant, it is not believeable that he should have vacated the shop in question so very easily in pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the parties and would then have resisted the proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. I accordingly hold that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in upsetting the said finding of fact of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was against the weight of evidence. It was perverse and illegal and therefore it cannot be sustained. It is important to note here that the clear case of the revisionist second party was that he continued to be in peaceful possession of the shop in question. If it was a fact that in pursuance of the compromise arrived at in between the parties the second party had delivered the possession of the shop in question to the first party Ram Sunder, there was no occasion for the first party Ram Sunder to have initiated proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. I accordingly find that the judgement passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is improper and illegal. The revision is therefore, allowed and the judgement and order dated 20.11.1982 passed by the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and the judgement dated 16.8.1982 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is restored. Revision Dismissed.;