SHANTI SARAN Vs. RAMPUR INDUSTRIES AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is dispute about plot No. 12, which is claimed by both the parties. The first party was Messrs. Rampur Industries and the second party was Shanti Saran Applicant. The land was attached after passing the preliminary order where after the parties filed their respective affidavits. A Commissioner was also appointed for local inspection. The Magistrate, on the material before him, came to the conclusion that it was the First party, which had been in possession of the disputed land at all relevant times. Accordingly he restrained the Applicant from interfering with their possession till they were evicted in due course of law. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Magistrate the Applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same, hence this revision.

(2.) It is clear from the record of the case that the land was released in favour of the Mills and possession delivered to them through police on 24-7-1964. The net result is that the First party has been in possession of the land for more than two years and the Applicant has been out of possession during all this period.

(3.) It is true that the learned Sessions Judge has made some remarks in his revisional order in favour of the Applicant. The mere fact that the revisional court would have taken a different view from that of the Magistrate, if it were hearing an appeal, is no ground for upsetting the finding of the learned Magistrate. The appellate and all the more so the court of revision has to come to a definite conclusion that the findings of the trial court were erroneous, illegal and perverse. The Sessions Judge has no where recorded such findings. Appraisement of evidence is not really the function of a revisional court, unless there has been some misreading of the evidence or some such other gross irregularis or illegality. When the evidence produced by the party is well balanced and it is difficult to take a view in favour of one party or the other, the appellate or revisional court would not take the contrary view if the trial court has taken a particular view on the basis of such evidence. In other words, if both views are possible, the one taken by the trial court cannot be called to be wrong.