SUKADEV BHANJA Vs. MANGULU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the final order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the parties claimed exclusive possession in respect of the land in dispute and led oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of the evidence to find out as to who was in actual physical possession, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken a view in favour of the first party -opposite party. While reaching this conclusion, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken due note of a decision of the civil Court in favour of the opposite party who had taken delivery of possession of the disputed land through the Court: In a proceeding under Section 145, it is the duty of the Executive Magistrate to give effect to the decision of the civil Court and see, as far as possible, that the decree is maintained. It would otherwise put a premium upon the high -handed and unlawful activities of the other side.

(2.) THE questions raised before me relate to appreciation of evidence. No illegality or impropriety has been committed by the learned Executive Magistrate. Assuming that another view could be taken in favour of the other side, that cannot be a ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) I thus find that there is no prima facie case for interference and in my view, this is not a fit case for admission. The revision is accordingly dismissed.