Judgment M.P.VERMA, J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Monghyr under S. 438 of the Criminal P.C. recommending that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria, dated the 20th September, 1965, to be set aside. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: 2. In village Rajdhan Karari, police station Parbatta in the District of Monghyr, there is a big survey plot of land bearing No. 77 extending over more than 100 bighas. In early thirteen the ex-landlord, Raj Banaili, in execution of a rent decree, purchased these lands and a sarbasta plot No. 11 comprising an area of 50 bighas was carved out. On a police report dated the 31st May, 1965, a proceeding under S. 144 of the Criminal P.C. was started in respect of these 50 bighas of land. A pleader Commissioner was then deputed on 3-7-65 by the Court to take measurement and he filed his report and a map prepared by him on 29-7-65. On 2-8.65 this proceeding under S. 144 of the Criminal P.C. was converted into one under S. 145 of the Code and it was in respect of the disputed two blocks. The learned pleader Commissioner in his map showed different blocks I to XI within this area. The first party consists of two sets, one represented by Bhola Kumar and Chandramani Kumar. They claim 6 bighas 10 kathas and 4 dhurs of land covered by blocks Nos. 2 to 7 of the Commissioners map. The other set of the first party, namely, Bishundeo Paswan and Chhotelal Paswan, claim amongst themselves blocks Nos. 8 and 9 of the Commissioners map. The total area of these two blocks 8 and 9 comes to 7 kathas and 9 dhurs. The learned pleader Commissioner did this measurement on the basis of one lagga being of 61/4 cubits. The second party Bhubneshwar Singh and others claim the entire disputed land measuring 6 bighas 17 kathas 13 dhurs, extending over blocks Nos. 2 to 9. 3. The case of the first party was that in the year 1933 they had taken a settlement of 40 bighas of land from Raj Banaili. This settlement was done on the basis of a receipt. 2 to 9. 3. The case of the first party was that in the year 1933 they had taken a settlement of 40 bighas of land from Raj Banaili. This settlement was done on the basis of a receipt. According to them, the western 10 bighas of this block of 60 bighas had been used for the settlment of displaced persons from Binda Diara whose lands had been diluviated. It may be mentioned that block No. 1 has been shown in the map extending on the west up to Block No. 10 and on the south to the boundary of village Sirnia. The eastern boundary of this block is also not disputed. The dispute is really concerning the northern boundary. Admittedly, Eklal Singh and others have got their lands on the north and the cases of the first party was that their lands extended on the north upto the land of Eklal Singh, meaning thereby that the disputed blocks Nos. 2 to 7 had also been incorporated in their settlement of 40 bighas. As a matter of fact, there was no dispute for block No. 1, which covers an area of 36 bighas 9 kathas 12 dhurs. The area of block No. 10 to the west of block No. 1 is 3 bighas 8 kathas and 4 dhurs. The case of the second party was that the first party had taken settlement of blocks Nos. 1 and 10 because their total area would come to 39 bighas 17 kathas and 16 dhurs or roughly speaking 40 bighas. Bhola Kumar and Chandramani Kumar further claimed blocks 8 and 9. They challenged the correctness of the report and the map prepared by the learned pleader commissioner. They got the lands measured by an Amin who filed his report and map along with his affidavit. 4. Both the parties filed their documents as well as affidavits of witnesses on their behalf. The learned magistrate, after a careful perusal of all the documents and affidavits, found that blocks nos. 2 to 7 were in possession of the second party and blocks nos. 8 and 9 were in possession of Bishundeo Paswan and Chhotelal Paswan of the first party since two months before the date of the initiation of the proceeding and so the possession of these persons were accordingly declared by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khagaria. 5. 2 to 7 were in possession of the second party and blocks nos. 8 and 9 were in possession of Bishundeo Paswan and Chhotelal Paswan of the first party since two months before the date of the initiation of the proceeding and so the possession of these persons were accordingly declared by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khagaria. 5. As against this order there was a revision filed before the learned Additional District Magistrate of Monghyr who has made this reference, as indicated above. 6. The main ground on which the reference was made by the Additional District Magistrate is that in view of the observation of the Hon ble Mr. Justice Ramratna Singh, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 788, 789 and 801 of 1962 dated the 17th December, 1962; the report submitted by the pleader commissioner as well as the police should not have been taken into evidence because the authors thereof were not examined nor filed affidavits in support of the same. 7. Mr. Kailash Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first party, has seriously contended that the police report and the report of the pleader commissioner are not documents within the meaning of S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They required to be proved. A similar contention had been raised by this very learned counsel before a Division Bench of this Court dealing with Criminal Reference No. 9 of 1962. The order of that Bench was passed on the 14th May, 1964. The learned Judges discussed the various aspects of this argument and expressed the opinion that the commissioners report as well as the police report, which were filed in case under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, were surely documents, legally put on the records and for that purpose the pleader commissioner or the police officer need not examine themselves as witnesses nor must necessarily file affidavits. In the instant case, the pleader commissioners report was not challenged by the applicants on the ground that it was inadmissible in evidence because of want of proof. But, they filed petitions on 13-9-65 and 17-9-65 challenging a few details as mentioned in the commissioners report. As a matter of fact, the order sheet shows that the pleader commissioner had appeared before the court and had given his explanation on some of the required points. But, they filed petitions on 13-9-65 and 17-9-65 challenging a few details as mentioned in the commissioners report. As a matter of fact, the order sheet shows that the pleader commissioner had appeared before the court and had given his explanation on some of the required points. The argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel is that the learned magistrate ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioners against the report of the commissioner and must have either confirmed the report or rejected it and thereafter should have appointed another pleader commissioner to take the measurement. It should be pointed out clearly that the legislature, by amending S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1955, intends that such dispute should be readily disposed of because any order passed under S. 145 of the Code is subject to the result of the title suit which the aggrieved party may file. In that view of the matter, such a detailed procedure cannot be expected of a magistrate to follow in a proceeding under S. 145 Cri. P.C. In accordance with the language used in S. 145 a magistrate has to peruse the documents and affidavits filed in the case. The word peruse of course means to examine critically. So, this contention of the learned counsel must be ruled out. 8. Secondly, it was argued that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure giving jurisdiction to a magistrate to appoint any pleader commissioner. Under S. 148 of the Code a magistrate could be deputed to make local enquiries. Under S. 539B of the Code, the magistrate is also authorised to make local inspection and so it is argued that no pleader commissioner ought to have been deputed to take measurement of the disputed lands in a case under S. 145 of the Code. In that Division Bench case a similar contention was raised, but was negatived. A reference was made there to the case of Chulhai Mahto V/s. Surendra Nath Chatterji, ILR Pat 75: AIR 1922 Pat 224 (2) which was taken as an authority for the view that a pleader commissioner can be appointed for making a local inspection of the subject matter under dispute in a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code. A reference was made there to the case of Chulhai Mahto V/s. Surendra Nath Chatterji, ILR Pat 75: AIR 1922 Pat 224 (2) which was taken as an authority for the view that a pleader commissioner can be appointed for making a local inspection of the subject matter under dispute in a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code. In the case of Sah Jamilur Rahman V/s. Abdul Aziz, 1960 B L J R 179 : ( AIR 1960 Pat 240 ), a similar view was taken by a single Judge of this Court. In my opinion, substantial justice should not be foundered on the rock of mere technicalities. 9. It cannot be argued that the finding arrived at by the learned magistrate was totally based on the report of the pleader commissioner or the police report. He has discussed all the documents and the affidavits individually which were available to him and then he came to the conclusion about the possession of different parties over the disputed area. Of course, the opinion expressed by the pleader commissioner concerning possession or some such thing cannot be accepted as evidence but the things found by him on the spot, that is, the topography or the configuration of the land should be taken into consideration. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, it may be painted out that in the receipt for settlement of 40 bighas of land, the boundary mentioned is as follows : North - Parti - Manuraj Singh, Eklal Singh etc. South - Siwana Sirnia East - Parti, Ram Sahai Kumar West - Siwana Binda Diara. So evidently in this receipt which is the title deed of the first party petitioner so the western boundary is Siwana Binda Diara. By no stretch of imagination it can be taken to mean "the lands occupied by the displaced persons of Binda Diara". Learned counsel appearing for the second party has argued that the northern boundary is parti and then the land of Manuraj Singh and Eklal Singh and others and this parti land which is represented by block 11 has been settled with them. If this interpretation is accepted, the boundaries given in this document would suitably fit in with the boundary given in the settlement receipt of the second party in which the boundaries are as follows : North - Eklal Singh South - Chandramani Kumar etc. If this interpretation is accepted, the boundaries given in this document would suitably fit in with the boundary given in the settlement receipt of the second party in which the boundaries are as follows : North - Eklal Singh South - Chandramani Kumar etc. East - Doman West - Siwana Binda Diara. There is no dispute between the parties concerning the eastern or the southern boundaries of block No. 1. So, if both these settlement receipts are placed side by side the dispute clearly resolves in favour of the second party. An argument was advanced on behalf of the applicants that the settlement receipt as well as the other receipts which have been produced by the members of the second party are all forged documents, because according to them no area was left in this block of 50 bighas to be settled with any body else. They had taken 40 bighas in settlement and the remaining 10 bighas on the west were in possession of the displaced persons of Binda Diara. Neither in the report of the pleader commissioner nor that of the Amin the western 10 bighas were shown to contain any habitation, rather the same crop as in Block No. 1. It may be that some people of Binda Diara might have encroached on some portion of this land and it may be that on account of this encroachment that the first party was claiming the northern land instead of the western land. The second party, on the basis of their sale deed, have also got themselves mutated in the sherista of the Government of Bihar and have been paying rent to them. The receipts of the ex landlord which were granted in favour of the members of the second party also bore the seal of the Receiver of the estate and so they could not be accepted to be forged once by the learned magistrate. The learned magistrate did not accept the Amins report in toto and gave good reasons for the same. The pleader commissioner, it is mentioned in the order, had taken measurement and prepared the field books in presence of the lawyers of the parties at the spot and his report showed that the houses were beyond this block No. 10 on its west. The pleader commissioner, it is mentioned in the order, had taken measurement and prepared the field books in presence of the lawyers of the parties at the spot and his report showed that the houses were beyond this block No. 10 on its west. He further found that Choteylal Paswan and Bishundeo Paswan, members of the first party, were in possession of the two disputed blocks Nos. 8 and 9 since more than two months before the date of the initiation of the proceeding and so their possession was declared. He further found the members of the second party to be in possession of blocks Nos. 2 to 7 and declared their possession accordingly. It is well known that the jurisdiction of a revisional court is very much limited. It cannot interfere with the order if on the same set of evidence another view different from that taken by the learned magistrate is possible. But, if there is a material irregularity on the face of the record or patently a gross injustice has been caused to any party, a revisional court would certainly like to interfere, with a view to remove the gross injustice. This order of the learned magistrate is of course subject to the decision of a civil court and the aggrieved party has still got that remedy. So, in view of the above discussions and on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances available in this case, it cannot be held that the learned magistrate based his finding on any inadmissible piece of evidence or took any perverse view of the documents and affidavits filed before him. 11 In my opinion there is no merit in this reference and it is accordingly discharged. S.N.P.SINGH, J. 12 I agree.