IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1295 of 2009 Bajrangi Singh son of late Chulhai Mahto, R/o village Marnahi, P.O. Pauthu, P.S. Jamhore, Dist. Aurangabad ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Sukhdeo Singh @ Karim Singh son of late Raghunandan yadav 3. Udai Singh @ Shambhu Singh 4. Bijoi Singh both sons of Sukhdeo Singh @ Kariman Singh All are the R/o village Harnahi, P.O. Jamhor Pauthu, P.S. Jamhor,Dist. Aurangabad ……… Opposite Parties. ------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, Advocate Mr. Manager Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mustaque Alam, Addl. P.P ---------- 3 21.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Sub-Judge III, Auranagabad in Miscellaneous Case No. 35 of 2007 by which the petition filed by the petitioner under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It appears that petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 206 of 2003 in which certain documents have been filed. The case of the petitioner is that the deed of Wajidava dated 11.7. 1959 was filed on behalf of defendant The contention of the petitioner was that two pages of the aforesaid deed have been changed by the defendant. The deed of Wajidava has been marked as Ext.D and the deed of Wajidava filed by the petitioner has been marked As Ext.4 and 4A. It appears that after hearing both the parties the Title Suit No. 206 2 of 2003 has been dismissed by judgment dated 16.3.2007 by the learned Sub-judge IIIrd, Aurangabad . In that suit the issue no.4, 5 and 6 was as to whether the deed of wajidava dated 11.7.1959 was correct and as to whether on the basis of suit the defendant O.Ps acquired right and title and the issue no.4 was as to whether the plaintiff has right and title over the land in dispute. Both the issues have been decided in favour of the defendant and it has been held in that judgment that there has been no manipulation or interpolation by the defendant O.Ps. After discussing all the issues and after passing the judgment and decree against the judgment dated 16.3. 2007, first appeal has been filed in this Court. After considering all these matters the learned Sub- Judge-III has held by the impugned order that no case is made out and the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner and the petition has been dismissed. Considering all these facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order the petition is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)