ARAKHITA SETHI Vs. GANGADHAR MISRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND party member is the Petitioner. This case has got a chequered career. It once came up in revision to this Court and was heard by Justice A. Misra. There were ten cases of similar nature. All of them were dealt with in a single judgment. The learned Judge remanded the case with a direction that the learned Magistrate will deal with all the ten cases separately and write separate judgments with reference to the materials of each record. Accordingly after remand, on examining the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the first party members are in possession of the disputed lands on the date of the preliminary order.

(2.) AS there are ten cases and various documents, I called upon the Advocate for the Petitioner to thoroughly go into the documentary evidence and the affidavits and give a chart making necessary comments as to how the documents help one party or the other. Despite the case being adjourned as part -heard, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has filed a note with reference to the documents filed by the Petitioner and without making any reference to the documents filed by the opposite parties.

(3.) THERE is no violation of any legal provision in this case. The learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion by assessment of evidence. I find no justification for interference with such an order by assessing evidence as an Appellate Court, particularly when the Petitioner has an alternative remedy.