IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17847 of 2008 NILAM KUMARI WIFE OF SHREE RAJENDRA MEHTA, AT PRESENT SERVING AS ARMY OFFICER POSTED AT SILIGURI IN SUPPLY CORPORATION, WEST BENGAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIJNATHPUR, POLICE STATION SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATYA NARAYAN MEHTA 3. SATISH MEHTA 4. DEEP NARAYAN MEHTA 5. CHANDESHWARI MEHTA 6. SHIV NARAYAN MEHTA, ALL SONS OF LATE BHANTI MEHTA, RESIDENT OF BAIJNATHPUR, P.S. SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA ----------- 2 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Petitioner challenges the order dated 18th December, 2007/ 29th January, 2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Saharsa, in Misc. Case No. 891 of 1999 whereby he has declared the possession of the concerned opposite parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per Annexure-1 the matter was heard and after perusal of the relevant documents, the proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioner declaring her possession, however, on revision the Additional Sessions Judge by its order dated 02.11.2006 in Cr. Revision No. 152 of 2005 set aside the order and matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for passing a fresh order. After remand a fresh order has been passed by the impugned order dated 18th December, 2007/ 29th January, 2008 by which the possession of the second party in the said proceeding was declared. Petitioner has assailed the said order and submits that the title as well as the possession is in favour of the petitioner, however, by the impugned order the possession of the second party has been declared. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the order can not be faulted since the order is a well discussed order and upon considering and appreciating the documents as well as the evidences, oral as well as documentary available on the record the possession of the concerned opposite parties has been declared. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the matter relates to the adjudication of the question of title followed by possession on basis of the relevant sale deeds as also the documents with respect to the possession of the parties. There is serious claim and counter claim on the question of title as also the possession. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. However, it will be open for either of the parties to approach the Civil Court with respect to the appropriate relief in the matter. The application accordingly stands disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)