N. B. ASTHANA, J. This revision has been directed against the judgement and order dated 28-5-1990 passsed by S. D. M. Bhadohi now district Gyanpur in case No. 19/111/1983 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. holding that the first party were in possession of the house and the land in dispute within two months of the date of the preliminary order and directing that the attached house and land released in favour of the first party. 2. The subject-matter of dispute is plot No. 2/1 area 3 biswansi and plot No. 3/1 area 6 biswansi situate in Mohalla Salamat Khan in Bhadohi town. It messures 20" x 65" boundaries of which are given in the applica tion moved under Section 145, Cr. P. C. 3. Application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was filed on 5-4-1983 by Akhlaq Ahmad, opposite party No. 1 in this revision claiming that he was in possession over the land in question as it was ancestral property. He constructed rooms over the aforesaid land after getting a map sanctioned from the Municipal Board and that the second party namely, Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari without any right or title wants to take forcible possession of the subject-matter of dispute. Report from the police was called for. By the report dated 11-4-1983 the police recommended for initiating action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The S. D. M. concerned accordingly passed preliminary order on 30-6-1983. On 6-4-1983 Akhlaq Ahmad moved an application for attachment under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The attachment order was passed on 23-6-1983. 4. The contention of the revisionist is that the land in question was purchased by him on 9-11-1981 by opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 and thereafter his name was mutated in revenue records. He then applied for the sanction of the plan to make constructions and opened a medical shop. On U-2-19cj2 opposite party No. 3 Shabbir Ahmad made complaint to Municipal Board about these constructions. His contention is that he was in possession of the land in question as far back as 11-2-1982 and since the report of the police for taking action is dated 11-4-1983, he was in possession of the subject-matter of dispute within two months of the date of preliminary order and as such the property should have -been released in his favour. It is also his contention that the notice by Nagar Palika for demolishing the contructions is dated 13-4-1982 while the police report for taking action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is 11-4-1982. 5. Suit No. 350 of 1982 Waqil Ahmad and others v. Mahamood Anwar and others, was filed in the court of Munsif Bhadohi with respect to this very land. That suit, however, is not between the parties. Only the revisionist is party to the suit. The opposite parties have not been arrayed as defendants. 6. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were decided on 7-6-1984 by the then S. D. M. , Gyanpur. He upheld the possession of Akhlaq Ahmad over the subject-matter of dispute. Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari then pre ferred Criminal Revision against that order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1984 Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari v. State of U. P. and Akhlaq Ahmad. It was decided on 11-10-1985 by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi. He allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 7-6-1986 and directed the S. D. M. to decide afresh the question of possession in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in body of the judgment. 7. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment opposite parties No. 8 1 to 4 filed Criminal Revision No. 1976 of 1986 in this Court. This revision was decided on 8-9-1987. This court while disposing of the revision observed that obviously the learned Judge has transvorsed beyond his jurisdic tion in this respect and the observations regarding the possession on the spot were uncalled for and have got to be ignored. " The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the revision recorded certain findings of facts regarding the possession on the spot holding that the evidence shows that Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari was in possession and had raised the constructions. This court observed that the order for remand was justified and the question of possession has to be decided by the learned Magistrate as has been directed by the learned Sessions Judge in the operative portion of his judgment dated 11-10-1985. 8. Wahid Ali Ansari was in possession and had raised the constructions. This court observed that the order for remand was justified and the question of possession has to be decided by the learned Magistrate as has been directed by the learned Sessions Judge in the operative portion of his judgment dated 11-10-1985. 8. The revision was disposed of with the observations that "while the learned Magistrate shall be completely free to consider the evidence on the record and to give an independent decision as regards the possession on the spot and pass a proper order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. he will not be found by the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge on pages 6 and 7 of his judgment regarding the possession on the spot being that of Dr. Wahid Ali. On the contrary he will ignore these observations of facts and then proceed in the matter. " 9. After the remand of the case, the matter was again decided on 28-6-1990 by S. D. M. , Bhadohi, Varanasi in favour of Akhlaq Ahmad. Aggrieved by it Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari has filed this revision. 10. I have beared the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. 11. It has been argued that in the remand order dated 11-10-1985 the trial court was asked to consider the documentary evidence available on record but in violation of that direction the trial court without looking into and discussing the documentary evidence filed in the case decided the matter in favour of the opposite parties Noa. 1 to 4. The argument is that in the revision filed before this court the observations of the learned Sessions Judge regarding possession of Dr. Wahid Ali Ansari were set aside but the direction given in the judgment regarding consideration of the documentary evidence on record was kept intact and since the trial court did not follow the directions regarding the consideration of the documentary evidence on record, the judg ment of the trial court has been vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 12. From a perusal of the judgment it would appear that on 11-2-1982 Shabbir Ahmad, opposite party No. 3 filed an application before the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Bhadohi in which he sated that the map submitted by the revisionist be rejected and the constructions over the land in question be demolished. 12. From a perusal of the judgment it would appear that on 11-2-1982 Shabbir Ahmad, opposite party No. 3 filed an application before the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Bhadohi in which he sated that the map submitted by the revisionist be rejected and the constructions over the land in question be demolished. The S. D. M. has not taken this document into consideration while deciding the question of possession. The report of the police for initiating action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was given after more than one year of this application. The Municipal Board, Bhadohi served a notice dated 13-4-1982 upon the first party asking him to demolish the cons tructions stating that these were made against the provisions of Municipal Act and the Bye-laws framed under it. This document has also not been consi dered. These documents have a bearing upon the question of possession. The trial court did not consider these documents. It should have considered these documents and if these documents were not found helpful for the revisionist in establishing his possession on the date of preliminary order and within two months next before it then these documents should have been rejected. The Magistrate committed a patent error in not discussing these documents at all. It has also been argued on behalf of the revisionist that during the pendency of proceedigs the opposite parties moved an application for attachment under Section 146, Cr. P. C. and the attachment was made on 23-6-1983. The argument is that had the opposite party been in possession then they would not applied for attachment. It has been contended that this application would also support the revisionist version of this case that he was in possession. This fact has also not been considered by the Magistrate. 13. In view of the discussion above I am of the view that the trial court passed the judgment and order in question without considering the documentary evidence on record. Such a judgment cannot be sustained. The revision has therefore, to be allowed. 14. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate to decide afresh as to which party was in possession on the date the preliminary order was passed and within two months next before it. The Magistrate would not permit the parties to adduce additional evidence in this case. 14. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate to decide afresh as to which party was in possession on the date the preliminary order was passed and within two months next before it. The Magistrate would not permit the parties to adduce additional evidence in this case. He would hear argu ments and then by a judgment discussing in detail the entire documentary and oral evidence would decide the case in accordance with law. Revision allowed. .