M. WAHAJUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THE present petitioners have come forward with a prayer that the order dated 2. 5. 1983 passed by the S. D. M. Fatehpur in case No. 4 of 1975 as well as the order dated 21. 9. 1983 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1983 upholding the Magistrates order may both be quashed. ( 2 ) BY the impugned order the present opposite parties have been declared in possession of plots Nos. 3 and 4 by the Magistrate and the petitioners have been directed not to interfere until an order by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in their favour. It would appear that the property intitially belonged to Mahadev Prasad who died in 1974 and his widow died in 1975 issueless. The opposite parties are the sons of the deceased brother of Mahadev Prasad and claim the properties by inberitence. The petitioner is an Institution. It claims the property on the strength of a deed of Waqf-name of Smt. Sahdai. There was mutation proceeding in mutation court and to cut short the mutation was ultimately directed in favour of the present opposite parties and the petitionerst prayer for mutation was rejected. The Waqfnama in question is of 1971. ( 3 ) THE Magistrate giving great stress to the order of mutation in favour of the opposite parties held the opposite parties to be in possession of the properties involved at the material time. The revisional court also up. held the order. ( 4 ) I have gone through both the judgments. It would be found that actually the Magistrate has proceeded to decided the case on the strength of mutation. It would also be found as per supplementary affidavit, paragraphs 6 to 8 that the petitioner had examined a number of witnesses, including those on actual possession. The Magistrate has not considered such evidence on. possession. The learned counsel for the opposite plfties laid stress upon the counter-affidavit of Subhash Chandra Srivastava. That counteraffidavit is not categorical in the sense that about Babu Lal it is stated that he could not give evidence on possession while for Bhagwan Singh it is stated that as he is an employee of the Institution he is an interested witness and regarding Ram Kishore it is stated that it was not helpful in the case. That counteraffidavit is not categorical in the sense that about Babu Lal it is stated that he could not give evidence on possession while for Bhagwan Singh it is stated that as he is an employee of the Institution he is an interested witness and regarding Ram Kishore it is stated that it was not helpful in the case. In view of clear and categoric assertion in the Supplementary affidavit as aforesaid the opposite parties should have categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that these witnesses have not given any statement on possession. Opinion of any individual how the evidence will be appreciated is not relevant and vague assertion that evidence of any witness will not be helpful or one could not have stated about possession or witness is interested as teacher employee will not serve the purpose. It is the function of the court itself as to what weight could be given. I am surprised to find that the Magistrate did not bother to consider the oral evidence on possession. Strangely enough he did not even consider the Waqf deed which is a documentary evidence in favour of the petitioner. As observed earlier, the judgment of the subordinate court is based simply on the strength of judgment in mutation case etc. The rule of justice is that however briefly, it may, be a court must consider the evidence led on record and refer to it. It was argued that in the case of Jairam and others the court declined to exercise its inherent powers though the judgment of the subordinate court in Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceeding was restraining upon documentary evidence. The facts of that case were such that in that particular case and in special circumstances the Court did not exercise its inherent powers. In that case there was voluminous documentary evidence in the nature of Khasra etc. which is strongest piece of evidence on possession and in that context and background the Court declined to exercise inherent powers. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan2 on the observation that if there is a remedy available Court may not interfere. which is strongest piece of evidence on possession and in that context and background the Court declined to exercise inherent powers. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan2 on the observation that if there is a remedy available Court may not interfere. That was a criminal case and if a remedy by way of appeal or revision is available powers will not be exercised under Section 482 Criminal Procdure Code but on this analogy it cannot be held that a party should be forced to prefer a regular suit and till decision of that suit he should remain debarred by the orders of the Magistrate so that ruling will not help. The facts of the case Vijai Narain v. State of U. P. 3 are also distinguishable. The matter related to criminal case. What was held was that as a prima facie case was made out powers will not be exercised. This will not be the position concerning a regular proceeding in the nature of one under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code which may widely effect the interest of any party. 4 5 6 ( 5 ) IN the case of Kalap Din v. State , lafar Husain v. State , Mst. Hasanki v. State and Tikanda v. State the view taken is that the judgment decree order etc. of the civil court though relevant is in no way conclusive nor the Magistrate is bound by the same and the Magistrate must come to his independent finding on the basis of the evidence before it. In fact similar view was taken in the cape of Fateh Chandv. State of U. P. following Division Bench cas. After considerinq the facts and circumstances of this case and the affidavit supplementary affidavit, counter-affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit I find that both the courts below have erred by having a wrong approach. The Magistrate was in error in not considering the oral evidence on possession and the implication of Waqfnama as an incidental documentary evidence. If pposite sides evidence on title could be considered as incidental by the Magistrate same approach should have been made concerning petitioners evidence. It is really said that in matters which are to be expeditiously disposed of unnecessary delays take place which must be deplored but I. cannot maintain the judgment and order of the trial court as well as of revisional court. It is really said that in matters which are to be expeditiously disposed of unnecessary delays take place which must be deplored but I. cannot maintain the judgment and order of the trial court as well as of revisional court. The petition is therefore allowed and both the impugned orders dated 2. 5. 1983 and 21. 9. 1983 passed by the S. D. M. Fatehpur and revisional Court are quashed and the case is sent back to the Magistrate to dispose of afresh after considering the entire evidence including the oral evidence of the petitioner and the Waqfnama. I may add that no additional vidence shall be allowed. Parties to appear in Magistrates court on 4. 8. 1984 and the Magistrate will immediately fix a short date for argument and dispose of the matter. I may also add that the Magistrate should not take more than two months from the date of this order in disposing of this matter. Petition allowed. .