JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision arises out of an order dated 30-8-66 passed in a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the S.D.O.-cum-Magistrate 1st Class, Dhenkanal in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 1965. 2. Hisabar Behera, 1st Party and Bhagaban Behera, 2nd Party No. 1 are two sons of Bhikari. Nidhishyam Behera is the son of Bhagaban Behera, 2nd Party No. 1. Bhikari and Pandab were two brothers. After Pandab's death Hisabar purchased in 1950 Pan dab's share of property from Malia, the widow of Pandab. Thereafter in 1951 Bhagaban's son Nidhishyam, 2nd Party No. 2 purchased the whole share of Bhikari by a registered sale-deed, and got his name recorded with respect as the said property. The dispute is therefore with regard to the property belonging to Bhikari, which in its entirety was transferred in the name of the 2nd Party No. 2. 3. Both the parties filed this written statements, affidavit and documents in support of this respective claims over the disputed property. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Court below on a cursory and slip-shed discussion of only a few documents here and there summarily disposed of the matter in favour of the 1st Party without discussing and assessing the written statements and the affidavits filed in this case. In support of her above contention she cited before me the decision in Raghunath Behera and Others Vs. Purna Chandra Mahanta and Others, 6, wherein it is observed as follows: Where the affidavits substitute evidence, it is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to examine carefully the affidavits of each deponent. He must give clear reasons for accepting or rejecting the affidavits as is done in weighing oral evidence. The order of the Magistrate must indicate that he had applied his mind to the affidavits. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how the affidavits are to be assessed. But all that is to be emphasized is that the affidavits cannot be dealt with in perfunctory manner by general observations. They should be weighed as oral evidence were being done prior to the amendment. 4. In this case before me, apart from other documentary evidence, 3 affidavits on behalf of the 1st Party and 2 affidavits on behalf of the 2nd Party were filed. They should be weighed as oral evidence were being done prior to the amendment. 4. In this case before me, apart from other documentary evidence, 3 affidavits on behalf of the 1st Party and 2 affidavits on behalf of the 2nd Party were filed. Without going into the respective merits of the affidavits filed on behalf of both the parties, specially with regard to the fact of possession, and perhaps being obsessed by his own observations, that no partition deed is there to indicate individual possession except the registered sale deed executed in 1951 to which the 1st Party had no knowledge, there is no other document to show as to why the 1st Party be deprived of any interest from his paternal property the learned Magistrate jumped to the conclusion that the 1st Party was in possession of the disputed land prior to the preliminary order. 5. On a perusal of the judgment I find that there is no discussion, assessment and sifting of the affidavits and documents, as it should be done in accordance with the above-mentioned and the many other pronouncements of this and other High Courts in India. The learned Magistrate did not take care to consider the intrinsic merit of the affidavits, specially with reference to the fact of possession, and did not state whether he accepted or rejected the affidavits filed by the 1st or the 2nd Party. All these indicate that he did not apply his mind to all the materials before him in a judicious manner, and as such his above finding cannot be said to be in accordance with law, and as such is liable to be set aside. 6. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid order of the Magistrate is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the Court below to be disposed of in a proper manner in accordance with law. It is expected that the learned Magistrate would dispose of the bearing of the matter within two months from the receipt of this judgment, with intimation to this Court. The revision is disposed of accordingly.