1 Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2005 (SHRIDHAR ATMARAM DESHPANDE..Vs. DEEPAK SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE & ANR... ) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri D.P. Thakare, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2008. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur allowing Criminal Revision No.120/2004 by respondent Deepak Deshpande, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside order passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur on Istegasha No1/2004. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in his order dated 8th July, 2004, had recounted the case set up by rival parties and concluded in two lines that after perusing record and reply filed on behalf of the parties 2 it was clear that the present applicant Shridhar Deshpande was owner and that the property has been measured by Taluka Land Inspector, Land Records. This could hardly be the reason to order that respondent Deepak Deshpande should not obstruct possession of the applicant Shridhar Deshpande. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that the matter ought to go back before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for further decision within fixed time limit. 4. What is challenged before this Court is order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and since there is no error or perversity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he set aside a thoroughly unsustainable order, it is not necessary to remand the matter back and relegate the parties to fight the litigation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate once again. Civil rights of the parties can be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.