Judgment The order dated 25.5.1981 and 30.9.1980 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 494 of 1963 and 30 of 1974 respectively have been challenged in this writ application. 2. It appears that there was a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure here in "referred to as the Code" in which the petitioners happened to be the members of the second party and opposite party No.3 was member of one first party. The dispute related to khata No.1 bearing plot Nos. 915, 939 and 944 having an area of 1.81, 3.09 and 2.57 acres of land respectively and the total area involved was thus 7.47 acres of land. 3. During the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code the matter bad been referred to the Munsif of the Civil Court and after receiving recommendation the impugned order as contained in Annexure dated 25.5.1981 had been passed. 4. Opposite party No.3 had based his claim that he had purchased the disputed plot of land from One Onkar Das who happened to be Mahanth of Nanak Sahi Thakurbari at Jamui. The lands concerned had been settled with the aforesaid Mahanth by Gidhaur Estate through Hukumnama. 5. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly confined his argument that neither the affidavit nor the evidence have been discussed at all. Further contention is that the documents have not been considered in the manner in which they ought to have been considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. This plea made on behalf of the petitioners has been resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 7. It is clear from the impugned order that as a matter of fact, earlier there has been a proceeding in respect of mutation filed on behalf of the petitioners and that had been decided in favour of the petitioners with respect to the disputed plots of lands. Even on appeal the order of mutation in favour of the petitioners remained unaltered. It is also indicated that as a matter of fact, the claim put forward by opposite party No.3 was with respect to 4.771/8 acres of land only. However the rest of the land has been claimed by means of oral purchase. 8. Even on appeal the order of mutation in favour of the petitioners remained unaltered. It is also indicated that as a matter of fact, the claim put forward by opposite party No.3 was with respect to 4.771/8 acres of land only. However the rest of the land has been claimed by means of oral purchase. 8. On careful consideration of the impugned orders contained in Annexures 1 & 2, it appears that the conclusion drawn for basing the order in favour of opposite party No.3 was on the basis of the perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents which have been found to be superior than those of the petitioners and also on consideration of the oral evidence. If that be the basis of the impugned order, it was all the more incumbent upon the court below to keep in mind that it is necessary in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code to discuss the evidence both oral and documentary and the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. Unless that is done, any opinion expressed with regard to the superity or soundness with regard to either affidavits or evidence cannot be said to be sound. Absolutely there is no discussion at all with regard to the evidence of the witness or affidavits and that being so there was no true comparison of the witnesses of the parties and that has rendered the conclusion without any merit whatsoever. Similarly if the documents are also not discussed it cannot be said that there has been proper appreciation of mind and the facts of the case for arriving at the Correct conclusion. 9. Simply by mentioning that the documents affidavits and the evidence are superior without having any discussion on them is neither permissible nor can be said to be sound for arriving at the conclusion regarding the position involved in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. 10. It is therefore necessary that the documents, evidence and the affidavits of the parties have to be considered in their true perspective. 10. It is therefore necessary that the documents, evidence and the affidavits of the parties have to be considered in their true perspective. Accordingly the application is allowed, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are set aside and the case is remanded for disposal in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made above It is, however, clear that none of the parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence whatsoever, but simply the date shall be fixed for making submissions on behalf of the parties and thereafter the case will be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Application allowed.