IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1393 of 2008 SIPAHI YADAV SON OF RAMBRIKSHA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAJARA (HARIGAON) P.S.- JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. Versus 1. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY SON OF HARIDWAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAHABIR BHAWAN CLUB ROAD, ARRAH, P.S.- ARRAH, NAWADA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR 2. PARHAMS SINGH SON OF RAM KRISHNA YADAV. 3. JAI KISHORE YADAV. 4. NAND KISHORE YADAV 5. BIR BAHADUR YADAV. 6. RAM KISHORE YADAV. SONS OF SIPAHI YADAV, NOS. 2 TO 6 RESIDENT OF VILALGE BAJARA (HARIGAON), P.S.- JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate ----------- 2 23.07.2010 While assailing the revisional order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate may not consider his application filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pass order afresh. I have perused the revisional order dated 27.8.2008 passed in Cr. Revision no. 14 of 2004. Learned revisional court has interfered with the order on the ground that there is no finding in regard to the fact that the dispute of possession was involved in the civil suit. Consequently the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jagdishpur in Case no. 16 of 2002 was interfered with. Paragraph 4 of the revisional court order is reproduced as under: “In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of the court below is set aside. The learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.” Having regard to the fact that the matter has been 2 remanded to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. The application is disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )