IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.974 of 2010 1. SAMRENDRA RAI, son of Late yadunandan Rai 2. Kamkhya Rai, son of Late Ram Chandra Rai …Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kameshwar Rai, son of Datari Rai 3. Bindeshwari Rai, son of late Baleshwar Rai 4. Janardan Rai 5. Rabindra Rai, both sons of Sri Bindeshwari Rai 6. Chhatish Rai, S/I Kameshwar Rai, all residents of village Ahrawon,P.S.Natwar, Rohtas. …opposite parties. For the petitioners :Mr.Aditya Nr. Singh For the State :Mr.Ajay Mishra ----------- 02. 09.07.2010 An application at Flag-A bearing I.A.No.1332 of 2010 under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application has been filed. On consideration of the pleadings made in the aforesaid application, this Court is satisfied that a case for condonation has been made out. Accordingly, I. A. No. 1332 of 2010 is allowed and delay is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner no.1 who is the first party to 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding pending in the court of SDM, Bikramganj, has filed the present application challenging the order dated 31.1.2010. The said order records as under: “In view of the above facts and also in the light of the report, bearing 1.No.25 dated 16/01/10 submitted by the Anchal Adhikari Dinara it is crystal clear that the land appertaining to khata no.72 existing in village Ahiraon, measuring an area 19.62 Acres has been recorded in jamabandi int the name of - 2 - (1) Ramchandra Rai (2) Dhaturi Rai and Bindeshwari Rai with equal shares on Jamabandi No.61/1 and this facts have not been denied by the parties. It is also admitted facts that the probate case no.68/2003 and counter probate case no.18/2004 are still under consideration before the competent court. In such circumstance, both the parties are at their liberty to cultivate the land in question as per their shares, existing in the Jamabandi till the disposal of the probate cases. If one of the parties, trying to dispossess another party forcefully, creating tension and trouble resulting apprehension of breach of peace, the administrative agency and police will take action against the wrong doer as per provision of law in order to maintain peach and tranquility.” Considering the scope of the provisions, this Court is satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned order. The application is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that by reason of the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate has declared the possession of second party. This Court on perusal of the order does not find the same. However, it is clarified that any observation made with respect to possession of the land in the impugned order, shall not prejudice the case of the party in any manner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )