SRI NILA KANTA DAS AND ANR. Vs. SRI UDAY NARAYAN UPADHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel of both sides. A proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up by the Executive Magistrate, Nalbari who concluded the enquiry with the finding that possession was with the second party to the proceeding. The first party went up in revision against the order of the trial court. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the revision and found that the first party to the proceeding was in possession of the proceeding land on the date of the preliminary order. So, he declared possession of the land in favour of the first party to the proceeding. The second party has come up in revision against that order passed in Criminal Revision No. 29 (K) -3 of 1981.

(2.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge found that the learned Magistrate held a local inspection on 18.8.80 and that there after he recorded evidence and decided the case. According to him the learned Magistrate should not hold such a local inspection before recording of the evidence. Secondly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reapreciated the evidence on record and found that the decision of the learned Magistrate was incorrect and erroneous. He, therefore, came to a different finding after discussing the evidence and passed the impugned order that the second party was in possession of the land.

(3.) ON the other hand, the finding of facts regarding possession arrived as by the trial Court is not found to be perverse or illegal by the revisional Court below. Therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have gone so far as to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different finding. The scope of the revisional Court is very limited. I find that the learned revisional court below has also gone wrong in reassessing the evidence and coming to a different finding which culminated in the reversal of the order of the trial Court. It is also found that the learned revisional Court below inducted some extraneous matters into the impugned order under para 4 of the judgment which do not appear to have been in evidence.