JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The impugned order u/s 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure declaring the second party-opposite parties to be in possession of the land in dispute has been challenged as illegal and unfounded and it has been submitted by Mr. Basu for the Petitioner that the case of oral sale set up by the opposite parties ought not to have been accepted and there were sufficient materials to take a view in favour of the Petitioner who was the first party in the proceeding. Mr. J.P. Misra has, however, submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate, for clear and cogent reasons, has found actual physical possession with the opposite parties and there is no justifiable reason for interference by this Court in revision. 2. While the case of the Petitioner was that the land stood recorded in the names of Haladhar Adabaria and Shankar Adabaria jointly and his father was in possession of the holding during his life time and after his death, he had been in cultivating possession thereof, the case of the opposite party, No. 1 was that he had purchased the land in the year 1963 from Shankar Adabaria by an oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession and that thereafter remained in possession thereof. The case of the opposite parties was that they were in actual physical possession of the land. 3. In a case of this nature, what the Court is to determine is as to who is in actual physical possession of the land in dispute and the Court is not concerned with the right to possess. On a consideration of the oral evidence adduced by both the sides and the documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Executive Magistrate considered the cases of the parties and taking due note of the fact that the possession in respect of the land in dispute had been recorded in the name of the opposite party No. 1 in the record-of-rights, held, as would appear from the order that such possession even if unlawful, was to be maintained in a proceeding u/s 145 and came to find that the opposite parties were in possession of the land when the preliminary order u/s 145(1) had been passed. This is purely a question of appreciation of evidence. This is purely a question of appreciation of evidence. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate in favour of the opposite parties is perverse or unreasonable calling for interference in a revision. I see no ground for any interference. 4. In the result, the application in revision is rejected and the revision stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed