JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, dated 30th January, 1981, passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 1978 (75/1977) reversing the order passed by the learned Sub-Division Magistrate, Rajgarh dated 27th July, 1977. 2. The petitioner Smt. Gulkandi, party No. 1, purchased 27 agricultural fields measuring 28 Bighas 15 Biswas situate at Surajgarh Tehsil Luxmin Garh on 1st May, 1972 from Shri Bihari Lal and Shri Mathura party No. 2 for a sum of Rs 40,000/-. According to the petitioner the sale deed was registered on 3rd May, 1972 and possession was handed over to her. Since then the land was in her cultivatory possession. Party No 2 wanted to dis-posses the petitioner for which they formed on unlawful and tried to obstruct the petitioner from cultivating the land in dispute. The petitioner filed the suit for injunction in the court of Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, where the non-petitioners were restrained from interfering with the petitioners possession The non-petitioners did not obey the order of injunction and threatened the petitioner and her husband with dire consequences. The petitioner thus instituted proceedings under Section 107, 116, and 151 Code of Criminal Procedure which are still pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh. On 6th October, 1974 the non-petitioners came on the land in dispute and wanted to take away the crop of the petitioner and threatened with dire consequences, which we likely to cause breach of the peace with regard to the possession of the lard in question The petitioner then filed an application under section 145 Cr. P.C. which was sent for investigation to the Police Station Laxmangarh, and the police submitted a report on 11th October, 1974 to the effect that there was like hood of breach of peace regarding the land in dispute and it was recommended that the land be attached. The learned Sub divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 6th March, 1975, holding that there was likelihood of breach of peace and directed the parties to submit their affidavits, documents, written statements etc. in support of their respective claims. The parties filed the various affidavits, written statements and documents in support of their claims. 3. The learned Sub divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 6th March, 1975, holding that there was likelihood of breach of peace and directed the parties to submit their affidavits, documents, written statements etc. in support of their respective claims. The parties filed the various affidavits, written statements and documents in support of their claims. 3. After hearing both the parties the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by lib order dated 27th July, 1977, held that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question on the date of the preliminary order and also within two months prior to that order and declared the possession of the petitioner and restrained the party No. 2 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The Non-petitioner No 1 Bihari Lal went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, who transferred the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar for disposal The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar by his order dated 30th January, 1981, reversed the order of the Sub divisional Magistrate and declared that party No. 2 were in possession of the land in question at the relevant time. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Addl Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 4. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for filing a further revision against an order passed by Sessions Judge in revision. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to make his submissions treating this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Mr Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of its power under revision had no jurisdiction to make a reappraisal of the evidence. It had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the ground of insufficiency of evidence or otherwise. According to the learned counsel every document and affidavit was examined by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have set aside the order of the Sub divisional Magistrate even if he was holding a different view. Reliance in this regard is placed on R.H. Bhulani v. Mits Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 , and Sheoram and another v. State of Rajasthan and others: 1976 Cr. Reliance in this regard is placed on R.H. Bhulani v. Mits Mani J. Desai, AIR 1968 SC 1444 , and Sheoram and another v. State of Rajasthan and others: 1976 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 313 Mr Rastogi further submitted that the execution of a sale-deed and its registration was admitted by the party No. 2 and this clearly proved the title of the petitioner on the land in question. There is a clear mention in the sale-deed that possession has been handed over to the petitioner and party No. 2 was be under by its own admission and there was no necessity for any further proof by the petitioner to prove her title, and possession over the land in question. It is also argued that due to settlement operations going on at the relevant time, it was not possible to get the mutation recorded in favour of the petitioner and as such the Girdawaris produced by the party No. 2 in their favour have no adverse effect on the rights of the petitioner. 5. There can be no dispute that an orders passed by the trial Court under Section 145 Cr. P.C., no interference can be made by a court of revision, by merely reappraisal of evidence or an ground of in sufficiency of the material. However, if the trial Court totally ignores the documentary evidence or affidavits or misreads such evidence and thus commits an apparent error in giving a finding about the possession, a court of revision is certainly entitled to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge was fully aware about the scope and limitation of revisional powers. He has observed in his order that ne agreed that a court of revision should not make a reappraisal of the evidence, but he further observed that in a situation where the evidence on record was not taken into consideration and wrong conclusions might have drawn by taking into consideration the evidence produced by one party alone and which could not have given full justice to the other party; in that situation there was no legal bar for the Court of revision to make a reappraisal of the evidence. 6. 6. In the facts of this case though a registered sale deed has been executed by party No. 2 in favour of the petitioner and there is also a mention in the sale-seed that possession was handed over to the petitioner, but the party No. 2 had taken a clear stand that actual possession was never handed over to the petitioner and remained with them. In proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. the Court has to decide the question of actual possession Party No. 2 in support of their claim for possession had filed Khasra Girdawari for the years Samvat 2030 to 2031 which correspond to the years 1973 and 1974. They also filed on order of the Assistant Collector Ex. A2 and Makal Jamabandi Ex. A3. They also filed affidavits on number of persons to show their actual possession on the land The petitioner party No. 1 mainly placed reliance on the registered sale deed and affidavits of certain persons to show her actual possession on the land in question. The case of the party no. 2 as regards the sale-deed was that though it was executed but it was done by way of security for repayment of certain ornaments prepared by the husband of the petitioner required in the marriage of Bihari Lals son. Ornaments were not of gold and as such the same were returned and this fact has been admitted by Khem Chand, the husband of the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statements of Behari Lal to the effect that the fact of delivery of possession was wrongly mentioned in the sale-deed. This fact finds support even from the statement of Khem Chand. Though Khem Ghand in his affidavit stated that possession was taken on the day of execution of the sale-deed but in his cross-examination he admitted that he took possession subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that party No. 1 had not taken possession at the time of registration or execution of the sale deed. Khem Chand in his cross-examination was unable to state as to which crop was sown by him after taking possession and he further admitted that Bhonrya, Chhitar, and Ganga Saha were the neighbouring cultivators of the land in question but he has not filed an affidavit of any one of these persons. Khem Chand in his cross-examination was unable to state as to which crop was sown by him after taking possession and he further admitted that Bhonrya, Chhitar, and Ganga Saha were the neighbouring cultivators of the land in question but he has not filed an affidavit of any one of these persons. He has also admitted that he has no ox and yake of his own but he has taken the same from Bhambhoo.Mehtab and Lallu. He does not remember the rent paid by him in this regard to Shanker Lal and he also did not remember as to whom he had given the land on BANTA i.e. share in crop. When further cross-examined he avoided the answer by saying that his mind was not working. Though he admitted to have paid the rent (lagan) but he did not remember the amount and also did not produce any receipt. He also failed to produce any application for making mutation in his favour. He further stated that he had not cultivated any crop in this year and after the altercation took place Bihari Lal and his party were cultivating the fields by force. There is another important aspect, of the case that with regard to the incident of altercation a report was lodged by Khem Chand in the Police Station on 12th August, 1974. From the narration of the facts made by Khem Chand it is obvious that he did not go on the field at least after 12th August, 1974. A preliminary order in this case has been passed on 6th March, 1975 and this goes to prove beyond any manner of doubt that party No.l was not in possession either on the date of preliminary order or within two months of such order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further found that Ramji Lal, who had given an affidavit in support of Khem-chand, subsequently gave an affidavit in support of Behari Lal and denied his earlier affidavit. He found that the affidavits of persons filed by Bihari Lal in support of his case were of persons belonging to different caste and who were neighbours of the land in question. On the other hand, the affidavits of persons filed by party No.l were of persons not even resident of that village where the land in question is situate. He found that the affidavits of persons filed by Bihari Lal in support of his case were of persons belonging to different caste and who were neighbours of the land in question. On the other hand, the affidavits of persons filed by party No.l were of persons not even resident of that village where the land in question is situate. Khasra Girdavari of Samvat years 2030, and 2031 and Jamabandi of 2032 and even parcha settlement is in favour of party No. 2. Admittedly, the party No. does not have any ox and yake and there is no convincing evidence to show that the party No. l had actually done cultivation by employing Halis and took on rent ox and yake of other persons. The proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. are merely intended for preventing breach of peace and to maintain physical possession over an immovable property till the question of title or right to possession is determined by a competent court The party No. l. claims to have derived any title in pursuance of the registered sale deed, remedy live with her to take appropriate proceedings for obtaining possession in a competent court. In my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case was right in setting aside the order of the Sun-Divisional Magistrate and in declaring the possession of party No. 2 on the land in question I dont find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of inherent powers of this court. 7. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******