Short Note : The applicant purchased the disputed land by registered sale-deed dated 8th October, 1971 from Ochelal and others. The applicant, from the date of sale-deed, was in possession of the said land and was cultivating the same. Applicant's name was also transferred on Survey No. 864 in village Chanhare. In Revenue records, the applicant was also shown as in possession of the land. The non-applicants also filed the case in the Tahsil Court with respect to the possession and the Tahsil Court also held that the applicant is in possession. On 5-10-72, the non-applicants tried to dispossess forcibly and it was feared that the dispute will cause breach of peace. Hence, the applicant lodged a report and presented a complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. In his application, he submitted that he is the owner and is in continuous possession of the suit land and his crops are standing, i.e., gram and Bajra. The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself that the dispute exists which may cause breach of peace, ordered that the land be attached. In the process of attachment, the crops were taken from the applicant. The parties presented the respective claims. The applicant presented evidence on his side, while the non-applicants produced the affidavits and submitted also that the crop they have sown is of gram. They also submitted in their affidavit that they are in continuous possession for the last so many years and the claim of the applicant is false. The learned Magistrate, after weighing the evidence, held that the applicant is not in possession and ordered that the possession of the land be delivered to the non-applicants. The applicant preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Bhind, which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge. He rejected the revision. This is a revision against that order. Held : After going through the evidence and the affidavit filed, I am of the view that the revision has no force and it should be rejected. It is also submitted before me that a civil suit has been decided between the parties. Judgment of that suit is not before me. Therefore, I can only say that whatever decision might have been given in that case, the rights of the parties will be decided according to the decision of the civil Court. 2. It is also submitted before me that a civil suit has been decided between the parties. Judgment of that suit is not before me. Therefore, I can only say that whatever decision might have been given in that case, the rights of the parties will be decided according to the decision of the civil Court. 2. The learned Magistrate has held that, in the application given by the petitioner, it was mentioned that he has sown Bajra as well as gram. In his affidavit also, he has averred that fact. While the non-applicants have submitted in their affidavits and reply that gram crop only is sown by them. When the land was attached and the crop was cut, only the crop of gram was there and no Bajra existed and, therefore, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the applicant are false and that the reply by the non-applicant goes to show that whatever they have stated is correct. Because of this finding, the trial Court rejected the application and held that the applicant is not in possession because he does not know as to what crop was standing in the filed. Same is affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am of the view that the judgment of the trial Court which is affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct and there is no need to interfere with that judgment in revision. Revision dismissed.