IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.58 of 2010 RAJENDRA MISHRA son of late Banwari Mishra, resident of Village Ukareri, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan … … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chandra Shekhar Mishra son of Ganesh Mishra 3. Om Prakash Mishra, son of Chandra Shekhar Mishra 4. Jageshwar Mishra son of Ganpati Misra 5. Gard Mishra son of Jaleshwar Mishra … … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri Kamlakant Tiwary For the State: Shri R.P.S.Singh, A.P.P. For the Opp. Parties: Shri Ranjan Kumar Dubey ----------- 8. 4.3.2011 Heard the parties. The Complaint petition was alleging that private opposite parties herein had gone over the orchard of the complainant and had plucked mango illegally and had taken them away. When the complainant objected to the highhandedness of the accused persons he and others were assaulted by lathi by the accused persons. It is true that the judgment is not happily written but in spite of that it conveys to this Court properly as to what the lower court wanted to convey after having considered the evidence. There was a dispute under Section 107 Cr. P.C. for the disputed possession over the same plot bearing Survey Plot No. 41 under Khata No. 362 which was measuring 8 Kathas 1 dhur. This is admitted by the complainant himself. It is also admitted that there were series of measurement carried on at the plot in question by the official Amin under the orders of concerned Anchal Adhikari and he was also reporting, as has been referred to by the lower court, the same disputed question of possession and the anomalous situation as regards the possession of the 2 parties. In the above background, the allegation has been found not proved by the learned trial court and it has been discussed threadbare even by referring to the constitution of the offence under which the trial was undertaken. It is too well known to be stated that if one believes a particular property to be belonging to himself and under such bona fide belief he goes over that property and commits any act in exercise of his right to property the same could never constitute an offence. Likewise, there could be a disputed question of possession over the land and if one goes over it then the same could never be said that he was exceeding his right by going over the land in exercise of his right of possession and in that case if someone interferes in exercise of such right by him, cannot be said to be exceeding his right of private defence to property. That appears the gist of the judgment. May be that the learned trial court was not that much clear in putting down his opinion. After having considered the judgment in its entirety, what I find is that the petition seeking Special Leave to appeal is completely frivolous and does not have any merit. Besides, the S.L.A. has been filed beyond four months of the period of limitation. This S.L.A. is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)