MAHANGA SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(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,

(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.