IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43735 of 2008 1.Jai Prakash Gupta 2.Sanjay Kumar Both sons of Village –Chewara, PS Chewara, District Sheikhpura (2nd Party) …………. Petitioners Versus 1.State Of Bihar 2.Samar Arif son of Late Md. Ali Kabiri, resident of Village Chewara, PS Chewara, District Sheikhpura (1st Party) ---------------------------------- 03- 22/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the present application is only academic in the sense that the challenge is to an order dated 28.7.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2008 by the Sessions Judge, Munger, by which he has set aside the order dated 26.4.2008 passed in Case No. 137M of 2008 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in view of the order losing its effect after 60 days, the revisional order has also lost its relevance and the present application to that extent is also academic. He further submits that the revisional court once coming to a finding that the order had lost its effectiveness, ought not to have interfered with the order which was impugned before the revisional court. For this he relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Jha vs. Narendra Nath Jha, reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 68. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that since the revisional court has gone ahead and upturned the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, even though the order had lost 2 its effect, was not proper and ought not to have been done and the same requires to be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the application and submits that the revisional court has only interfered with regard to the finding given in the original order dated 26.4.2008 with regard to the right, title and possession of the land in question. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this application is disposed off by clarifying the position that any observation made in the order of the courts below touching upon the title or possession of the party shall not be binding or prejudicial to either of the party in future litigation. 5. This application stands disposed off. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)