JUDGMENT :

R.K. Dash, J. - The petitioners, second party members in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. have assailed the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the revisional Court.

2. On the application being moved by the first party opp. party herein, initially a proceeding u/s 144, Cr.P.C. was initiated. Later on, it was converted to one u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and parties were given opportunity to file written statement. It would appear from the impugned order that the opp. party filed his written statement, but the petitioners did not. On 26.2.1994 the petitioners sought for adjournment to file written statement, but when the case was called none appeared for them for which prayer was refused and the case was adjourned to a future date for orders. On the adjourned date, as it appears, the learned Magistrate upon perusal of the written statement and the document of the opp. party, passed the impugned order declaring possession of the disputed land in his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners carried Revision to the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh upon hearing the parties declined to interfere with the said order and dismissed the revision.

3. Learned senior counsel Sri R.K. Mohapatra appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned order of the Magistrate is a non-speaking order, inasmuch as there was no application of mind to the facts of the case and claim advanced by the opp. party, and because the petitioners failed to file written statement the learned Magistrate by drawing presumption came to hold that the opp. party is entitled to retain possession of the disputed land. He further submits that the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. being quasi-civil in nature, the petitioners even without filing written statement could have contested the same if opportunity was afforded to them by fixing a date of hearing. But it was not done so, and therefore, to undo the wrong, the Court by invoking inherent power as envisaged in Section 482, Cr.P.C. should set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh hearing.

Sri P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. party on the other hand vehemently urges that since there is a statutory bar to entertain a second revision by the aggrieved party, the Court cannot interfere with the impugned order in the garb of exercising inherent power. Nextly he urges that the learned Magistrate having applied his judicial mind to the facts narrated in the written statement and on scrutiny of the available document recorded finding of possession in favour of the opp. party, and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was abuse of the process of the Court which requires interference of this Court in exercise of inherent power.

4. To appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar, it will be appropriate to reproduce the ultimate conclusion of the learned Magistrate which runs thus :

"On perusal of document and discussion made above it is presumed that O.Ps. have no claim over the disputed land. Hence, it is order that the 1st party is entitled to retain the possession of case land unless and until evicted by a proper Court of law, inform Officer in charge accordingly."

The claim of the opp. party in the written statement reference of which was made by the learned Magistrate was that the land in question was jointly recorded in his name and others and in an amicable partition amongst the recorded tenants the same fell in his share which he has been possessing peacefully. The said claim was however, not supported by oral or documentary evidence. Learned Magistrate although has observed to have made reference to the documents so produced by the opp. party, but the order is silent as to what document/documents he referred to. Section 145(4), Cr.P.C. mandates that it is obligatory for the Court to hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced and only thereafter, if possible decide which of the parties was, at the d