JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed, on 15.2.2000, by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nagaon, in C.M. Case No. 33 (N) 99, whereby the order dated 29.1.1999, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Nagaon, in MR Case No. 215/97 under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., declaring the possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party, who is the petitioner in the present revision petition, was set aside.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to this revision are as follows ; The first party instituted MR Case No. 215/97 aforementioned seeking declaration of his possession over the disputed land. The second party, who is the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in the present revision, resisted the claim of the first party. During the course of the proceeding, evidence adduced by both the parties were recorded and by the order, dated 29.1.1999, aforementioned, the learned Magistrate declared possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party. This order was impugned in CM Case No. 33(N)/99 aforementioned and by the judgment and order, dated 15.2.2000, the declaration made by the order, dated 29.1.999, aforementioned was set aside by the learned revisional Court.
3. Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the second party – O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.
4. On a careful scrutiny of the revision petition, it transpires that the judgment and order dated 15.2.2000, aforementioned has been impugned in the present revision by the first party on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has re-appreciated the evidence on record and on an erroneous view taken of the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the findings reached in the proceeding by the learned Magistrate.
5. It is well-settled that the powers of revisional court do not, normally, extend to re-appreciating the evidence, but for determining the correctness of the findings arrived at by an Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145, it may become necessary, for a revisional court, to examine the evidence on record and if the findings are found to be perverse and/or contrary to law, interference with such findings by the revisional court may follow.
6. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute before me that the learned Magistrate had declared the possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party. However, the learned Sessions Judge noticed, on scrutiny of the evidence on record, that PWs 1 and 2 were ad hairs of PW 3, who was the first party and who had claimed the possession over the disputed land. So far as PW 1 was concerned, his clear evidence was that at the time of initiation of the proceeding as well as two months prior thereto, the disputed land had been in possession of the second party. As far as the PW 2 was concerned, his evidence also was to the effect that it was the second party, who had the possession of the disputed land, when the same was attached. Thus, in the face of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, both of whom were claimed to be the actual cultivator of the land on behalf of the PW 3, PW 3 (i.e., the first party) could not have been held to have established first party’s possession over the disputed land. This apart, the evidence given by the second party and his witnesses is consistent and coherent indicating that the disputed land has been in possession of the party. In the face of such cogent evidence, there was no foundation in the evidence to declare the possession of the disputed land in favour of the first party. The finding of possession, thus, reached by the learned Magistrate was wholly contrary to the evidence on record. In fact, this position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Opposite parties. Such a finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate was, undoubtedly, perverse and the same could have been interfered with by a revisional court. Hence, the learned Additional Judge committed, in my firm view, no illegality in setting aside the said perverse finding of the learned Executive Magistrate.
7. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and this revision is accordingly dismissed.
8. No orders as to costs.