JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional Court regarding khata No. 289 on the ground that the revisional court has misread the extract of 1362-F, and has made irrelevant and unwarranted observations regarding the claim of the petitioner in that khata. 2. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revisional court has appraised the evidence on record and has arrived at correct conclusion, hence the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. 3. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 4. I find that the revisional court in the impugned judgment has made the following observation :- " The revisionist Rahmat Husain son of Nisar Husain was ordered to be recorded as sub-tenant of class 9. There is, however, no reference to case number, date and the authority who passed the order. There is also no khasra extract of 1362-F, on record to show that Rahmat Husain was found to be in possession of the land in dispute......." 5. Annexure 'D' attached with the writ petition demonstrates that the observations made by the revisional court are against the evidence on record. In Annexure 'D' it has been indicated that in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in case No. 1 decided on 14-5-1955 the name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded in class 9'. The aforesaid document has been misread and misappreciated by the revisional court. The aforesaid entry is not regarding Compensation entry and the same entry does indicate that the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded in class 9 in Case No. 1 decided on 14-5-1955. 6. Since the revisional court has misappreciated an important piece of evidence regarding claim of the petitioner based on adverse and continuous possession for more than statutory period, it is proper that the impugned judgment of the revisional court should be quashed and the revisional court should be directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner regarding khata No. 289 in the light of the pleading and evidence of the parties on record. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been able to support the impugned judgment in the face of Annexure 'D' on the record. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been able to support the impugned judgment in the face of Annexure 'D' on the record. The aforesaid document has not been characterised either forged or fictitious on the part of the contesting opposite parties, hence its effect should be examined by the last court of fact in correct prospective. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part relating to khata No. 289 and the impugned judgment of the revisional court is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to decide the claims of the parties afresh with regard to khata No. 289 alone. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.