- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) NOTICES were sent to the respon dent Nos. 3 and 4 through registered post which have not been returned back served or unserved. Service is being deemed to be sufficient. No counter- affidavit has been filed. By the present petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 6-5-1997 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) whereby Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1995 filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was allowed by the revisional Court reversing the findings of the trial Court and directing the parties to maintain status quo till rights of the parties were decided by competent civil court. The disputed land belonged to Ram Piyarey. Respondent Siya Ram and Ram Milan are admittedly sons of Ram Piyarey. The said Ram Piyarey died some times in December 1992. The petitioner's case is that on 21-9-92 Ram Piyarey had executed a will in his favour and during his life time he was in possession of the dis puted plot of land. On the death of Ram Piyarey. he moved an application for muta tion of his name in the revenue records and then a dispute arose between the parties. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 attempted to dispossess the petitioner forcibly and there was an apprehension of breach of peace.
(3.) ON a police report regarding exist ence of apprehension of breach of peace between the parties, a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. PC. was drawn by the learned Magistrate and the disputed land and crop standing thereon were at tached. Thereafter the parties adduced evidence with regard to their respective case of possession. S. D. M. Bansi, district Siddharthnagar, by judgment and order dated 4-7-95 (Annexure 4 to the writ peti tion) held that the petitioner was in position of the disputed land and crops were by him. Therefore, he directed the session of the disown release of the land as well as attached crops to the petitioner. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1995. Revisional Court reappreciated the evidence on record and reversed the find ings of the trial Court holding that the crops be given to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and with regard to the land passed the order directing the parties to maintain status quo till the rights of the parties were decided by the competent civil court. Judgment and order of the revisional Court is challenged mainly on the ground that the revisional Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in sub stituting its own findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and that the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court were sup ported by reliable evidence and cogent reasonings.;