JUDGEMENT This revision petition is directed against an order dated 14th June, 1979, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Pernem Taluka. By that order, the learned Executive Magistrate held that the respondents (Second Party members) were in possession of the disputed land at the time of the attachment and prior thereto. 2. The main grievance of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that although the learned Magistrate has referred to the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents, he has neither discussed their evidence for the purpose of bringing out their comparative value. According to him the petitioners examined two neighbouring land owners. There was no reason to disbelieve their testimony. If the learned Magistrate would have applied his judicial mind to the evidence adduced by both the parties and made a comparative assessment, there was no doubt that he would have come to the conclusion that the disputed land was being possessed by the members of the First Party i. e., the petitioners. 3. I have gone through the order under challenge as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. There is no doubt that in so far as the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, the learned Magistrate has discussed it and in his own way assessed it as unworthy of acceptance. Out of the two witnesses, one witness, admittedly, being related with the petitioners, is an interested witness. Besides this, he also noticed discrepancies in the evidence as regards the type of crop raised in the land and also the parcels or divisions it consists of. No fault can, therefore, be found with the learned Magistrate that he has not discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. There is, however, no doubt that he has not followed the same procedure of discussing, analysing or scrutinising the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. On being satisfied that the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners is not satisfactory, he at once jumps to the conclusion that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents is acceptable without discussing it. This is where he seems to have committed an irregularity in the matter of assessment of evidence to find out which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land. 4. This is where he seems to have committed an irregularity in the matter of assessment of evidence to find out which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land. 4. I am quite conscious of the fact that inquiry under Sec. 145 is of summary nature and, therefore, this Court should hesitate before interfering with the finding of the Magistrate in such cases. There appears to be no rule or law dispensing with the judgment of the Magistrate being self-contained, so self-contained that the finding with regard to possession can be maintained by a mere perusal of it, merely because the proceedings are of summary nature. Stated another way, it is not sufficient if the order merely states that the evidence let in by the Second Party members is satisfactory. After discussing only the evidence adduced by one side, failure on the part of the Magistrate to discuss the evidence of the other side i. e., respondents in the judgment, gives a clear indication that the Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in a proper manner. A similar view has been taken in the case of Kappa Puttanna Ningaiah v. M. S. Sreeman (1967 Cri LJ 1726) (Mys). I feel, therefore, constrained to remand the case to the lower Court with a direction that the learned Magistrate should discuss the evidence of the Second Party members and dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. 5. This revision petition is accordingly allowed, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and the case is remanded. The Magistrate should now dispose of the case in accordance with law after discussing the evidence adduced by the parties fully before recording his finding on possession. No costs. Revision allowed.