A party forcibly dispossessed within two months before the date of report of incident or after that date and before the date of order under Section 145(1) CrPC shall be treated as if that party had been in possession on the date of order under Section 145(1) CrPC.

1. - This petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas dated 1.10.93, whereby he has allowed the appeal of respondent and set aside the order of learned S.D.M. Kishangarhbas dated 22.4.1992.

2. The brief facts to be noticed in short that one report was submitted before the SHO, Kherthal on 4.6.84 to the effect that there is a dispute over the possession of 5 shops and there is every possibility of breach of peace. After inspection of the site, the SHO, Kherthal had submitted a report to SDM, Kishangarhbas under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. that there is every possibility of breach of peace, therefore, the property in question be attached. On receipt of report from SHO, a preliminary order under section. 145 Criminal Procedure Code, was passed and 5 shops in Khasra No. 1988 were attached on the same day i.e. 4.6.84, to prevent the breach of peace. Thereafter, the parties were directed to appear before him and file the statement along with evidence regarding the claim of possession of both the parties. In response to the direction of SDM, they filed the written statements and also adduced the evidence and produced the witnesses in their favour.

3. Considering the statements of all the parties and the statements of witnesses produced by both the parties and also on the basis of material evidence placed on record by both the parties, the learned SDM has found that two shops out of 5 shops were in possession of the petitioners. The respondent was permitted to construct 5 shops in 40' in length in khasra No. 1988 while these 5 shops were constructed in 47' in length in khasra No. 1988. In view of this matter, the SDM was of the opinion that petitioners were in possession of the disputed shops on 4.6.84. Therefore, he ordered that the possession of these 5 shops be restored to the petitioners.

4. In revision in the court of learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, the learned Judge was of the view that SDM, Kishangarhbas has ignored the relevant evidence of respondent Mahadev Prasad in respect of possession of 5 shops on 4.6.84. Not only that, but SDM has based his findings on inadmissible evidences. He has also based his finding on the evidences which were not even part of the record. Therefore, he set aside the order of SDM and allowed the revision of the respondent.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 8 biswas of land from old khasra No. 1988 (new khasra No. 1986) (hereinafter referred to as `khasra No. 1988') has been allotted to the petitioner Charamkala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kherthal (hereinafter referred to as `Samiti'). On that land, 17 shops were constructed and 5 shops were constructed in 1984. There is no dispute regarding 17 shops constructed by the petitioner Samiti. The limited dispute is only regarding 5 shops which were constructed in 1984. Mr. Mathur submitted that these 5 shops were constructed by the petitioner Samiti. In support of the claim of the petitioner Samiti, he placed reliance on some receipts regarding purchase of building material and also on the following documents:-

"1."Ex.D.2 Measurement of the land under khasra No. 1988 and the details of the entire land comes under khasra No. 1988 (page 283 of the record).

2.Ex.D.3 Copy of the Ghatna Bahi (daily diary available on page 280).

3. Ex.D.4 Copy of the Patta through which land was allotted to party No. 2 (Page No. 279).

4. Ex.D.6 Dimensions given in Patta and the site plan available on Page 287.

5. Ex.D.8 Application moved by the Manager, Charam Kala Society before Tehsildar dated 8.10.1963 (available on page 283)

6. Ex.D.9 Copy of Exparcha

7. Ex.D.10 Copy of the judgment of the Managing Officer, Alwar dated 23.12.1964 (available on page 286)."

8. He further submitted that once the SDM found the fact that the petitioner Samiti is in