D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS by filing the instant revision application, have challenged the order dated 24,1.1997 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Chatra in a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr PC vide case No. 87 of 1995, T.R. No. 55 of 1997, whereby the possession of the opposite -parties No. 1 to 3, who were the members of the first party in the said proceeding, over the disputed land was declared and the present petitioners who were the members of the second party, were restrained from entering into the said land. The dispute between the parties is related to a piece of land measuring 16.64 acres. Both parties have advanced their respective claims of title and possession over the disputed land. A series of litigations in respect of the said land was contested between the parties.
(2.) IN course of inquiry under Sec. 145, Cr PC, both parties were directed to adduce their respective evidences. By the impugned order dated 24.1.1997, the learned Court below passed the final order declaring possession of opposite -party Nos. 1 to 3 over the disputed land. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order basically on the ground that it was passed by the learned trial Court in abject haste and without conducting a fair trial and without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners to adduce their evidences. In order to demonstrate the points, learned Counsel for the petitioners refers to certain orders of the lower Court records. Beginning with the order dated 9.8.1996, learned Counsel explains that the records pertaining to the proceeding was received in the learned Court below on transfer from the Court of Sub - Divisional Magistrate on 9.8.1996, whereafter the first party/opposite -parties was called upon to adduce their evidences. During the period between 9.8.1995 to 20.1.1997, as many as 35 adjournments were granted to the first party to adduce their evidences. Ultimately, after having availed full opportunity, the first party closed' their evidences on 20th January, 1997 and on being called upon to adduce evidences, the petitioners/second party examined one witness on 16/5/2014 Page 201 Mukhopadhaya M. Versus State Of Jharkhand their behalf. On the following day, the case was posted for adducing further evidence of the petitioners -second party, but the petitioners sought for adjournment to adduce their evidences which was allowed by the trial Court and the case was posted for evidence on 24.1.1997. Referring to the order elated 24.1.1997, learned Counsel explains that on that date, the petitioners had filed attendance of as many as four witness, but on account of the face that the Presiding Officer was engaged in law and order duty, the matter was not taken up and none of the witnesses could be examined on that day. On the following day i.e. on 25.1.1997 petitioners again produced their witnesses along with a list of five witnesses, but to their utter surprise, they came to know that on the previous day i.e. 24.1.1997 the trial Court had recorded the impugned order disposing of the proceeding while declaring the possession of the opposite -party over the disputed land. Learned Counsel explains that it would be apparent from the above that even though the case was posted for adducing evidences on behalf of the petitioners on 24.1.1997, none of the witnesses produced was examined, nor was the case fixed for hearing final argument and even without hearing the parties, the learned Court below proceeded to record the final order on the same day apparently behind the back of the petitioners and the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the final order was passed in haste and in a manner which is extremely prejudicial in the interest of a fair trial.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite -parties, on the other hand, while refuting the grounds advanced by the petitioners, submits that it is totally wrong to say that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to adduce their evidences. In fact, the petitioners were afforded opportunity and they had availed the said opportunity by adducing documentary evidence on their behalf and since the dispute between the parties relates both to claim of title as well as possession, the learned Court below had rightly proceeded to record its finding on the basis of the documents adduced by both the parties. Learned Counsel while referring to the judgment of Patna High Court, Jhalo Devi and Ors. V/s. Jagannath Mondal, 1998 1 EastCrC(Pat) 414 submits the Magistrate conducting inquiry under Sec. 145, CrPC, need not advert to the oral evidence, if documentary evidences are available on record and is sufficient to decide the issue in the proceeding concerning the dispute between the parties.;