Judgment Uday Sinba, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against a final order in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first and third parties are petitioners before this Court. The lands in dispute were 2.17 acres in village Hardas Bigha, Police Station Fatwah, district patna. The lands in dispute belonged to one Afzal Hussain, who was possessed of lands measuring 32.15 acres. He died leaving behind his widow Bibi khatoon, his father Sayadutt Hussain, a son Mohammad Wassim and a daughter Bibi Sakina. Sayadutt Hussain, the father treating his share as 2 annas 8 pies in the properties of Afzal Hussain transferred four annas interest to Bibi Khatoon, four annas to Bibi Sakina and eight annas to Mohammad wassim by Tabliqnama, dated 26-10-1916. Bibi Khatoon, Bibi Sakina and mohammad Wassim came in possession of lands gifted to them by sayadutt Hussain. According to the first party, Bibi Sakina died unmarried. Subsequently Bibi Khatoon also died. The shares of Bibi Khatoon and Bibi sakina devolved upon Mahammad Wassim, who thus came in possession of the entire properties of Afzal Hussain. It was claimed by the first party that he dealt with the lands by either selling or mortgaging part of the heritage at different points of time by separate deeds. The first party Bibi Asghari khatoon, who is wife of Mahammad Wassim claims to have come in possession by virtue of transfer of the lands to her by Mahammad Wassim in lieu of dower debt, This Baksisnama in lieu of dower debt was executed on 3-7-1969. Since then the first party claims to be in possession of the lands in dispute in her own right. 2. According to the second party, the facts alleged by the first party uptil 1916, when the Tabliqnama was executed by Sayadutt Hussain are accepted. The controversy starts thereafter. According to the second party, bibi Sakina was married to Mahammad Zubair. They had a daughter ashmatunnisa and son-in-law Abdul Sajjad Ashmatunnisa and Sajjad had two daughters Asharat and Parhat. Bibi Sakina died in 1939 leaving behind her daughter and son-in-law, Ashmatunnisa also died leaving behind her two daughters Ashrat and Farhat. On 21-9-1964 Abdul Sajjad sold the disputed lands to Saida Khatoon. On 5-3-1970 the latter sold the disputed lands by two registered sale-deeds to second party Nos.1 and 4. Bibi Sakina died in 1939 leaving behind her daughter and son-in-law, Ashmatunnisa also died leaving behind her two daughters Ashrat and Farhat. On 21-9-1964 Abdul Sajjad sold the disputed lands to Saida Khatoon. On 5-3-1970 the latter sold the disputed lands by two registered sale-deeds to second party Nos.1 and 4. Opposite party nos.1 to 6 came up from the same family and were arrayed as second party in the proceeding. 3. The case of Tamizunnisa, petitioner No.3 and third party to the proceeding was that she was a mortgagee of the first party of several parcels of land by registered deeds dated 31-3-1967, 12-6-1967 and 1-7-1969. Plot nos.601 and 602 are the only plot in dispute out of the lands mortgaged with her. Noor Jahan, petitioner No.4 and third party to the proceeding claimed to be in possession of plot Nos.603, 560, 559, 558 and 590 as mortgagee from the first party by registered deed dated 4-3-1970. In short the third party claimed to be in possession of the disputed lands as mortgagees of the first party. 4. The learned Magistrate having found the second party in possession of the lands in dispute declared their possession as such and forbade all disturbances to their possession unless evicted therefrom by a competent court of law. The petitioners have, therefore, moved this court in revision against the order of the learned Magistrate declaring possession of the second party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following points in support of the rule issued in this case - (1) The order of the learned Magistrate is vitiated, as no finding has been recorded in regard to the claim of possession put forth by the third party. (2) The order of the learned Magistrate is vitiated on account of non-consideration of documents filed by the first and third parties. (3) The affidavit filed on behalf of Bibi Sakina by Abdul Rauf has not been considered by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. 6. In my view, the first ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is substantial. The third party claimed to have come in possession of the lands in dispute by virtue of mortgages. Their possession would have a bearing on the claim of the first party as well. 6. In my view, the first ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is substantial. The third party claimed to have come in possession of the lands in dispute by virtue of mortgages. Their possession would have a bearing on the claim of the first party as well. It was, therefore, essential for the learned magistrate to have considered the case of the third party and recorded a finding in that behalf. The submission on behalf of the petitioners was countered by learned counsel for the opposite party by submitting that although the learned Magistrate has not recorded any specific finding in regard to the claim of the third party, but the affidavits filed on their behalf have been considered and, therefore, the impugned order must be read as having rejected the case of the third party. I regret, it is not possible to accept the submission on behalf of the opposite party. A court is obliged to record a finding in regard to the claim of each party. The consideration of the affidavits of the third party also leave much to be desired. The learned Magistrate appeared to be of the view that Abdul Rauf was one of the witnesses, who had sworn affidavit on behalf of the first party. In fact, he had sworn affidavit on behalf of the third party and not first party Sheikh Mohibs affidavit was considered by the learned Magistrate as being on behalf of the third party when in fact he was a witness for the first party. 7. The submission in regard to the order under challenge being vitiated on account on non-consideration of documents filed on behalf of the first and third parties is also substantial. At no point has the learned Magistrate referred to the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners I have been shown some of the documents filed on their behalf. Some of them were executed much before any dispute between the petitioners and the vendors of the second party had erupted. Thus to sum up, the learned Magistrate has faltered in the matter of consideration of affidavits. He has failed to consider the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners. He has failed to record any finding to the claim of the third party. From all these infirmities put together, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. 8. Thus to sum up, the learned Magistrate has faltered in the matter of consideration of affidavits. He has failed to consider the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners. He has failed to record any finding to the claim of the third party. From all these infirmities put together, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. 8. For the reasons, stated above the application is allowed and the case is remanded back to to the Sub divisional Magistrate, Patna City, who will himself dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Application allowed.