Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9th July, 1990 passed by Sri Jiwan Tigga, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge.Singhbhum at Chaibassa in Crl. Revision No. 78/88 preferred by opposite party No. 2 through which the said revision was allowed and the order dated 25-4-1988 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 693 of 1984 was set aside and the case was remitted to the learned Executive Magistrate for a denite finding in respect of the disputed plot and its proper declaration in the eyes of law. 2. The fact, it short, for the purpose of this revision is that a proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. was drawn /up bearing Misc. Case No. 690/84 in respect of the house standing on holding No. 55-A measuring 20 X 40 under Ward No. 3 bearing plot No. 858/861 in Dhadkidih block. P.S. Bistupur and in that proceeding the petitioners were the members of the first party and opposite party No. 2 was the second party. In the trial court both the parties claimed possession over the disputed land in which there is a house also and adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned Executive Magistrate Sri B.P. Sinha vide order dated 29-4-1988 in the Possession of the first party was declared. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 78/88 which was allowed by order dated 9th July, 1990 by the 2nd Additional Sessions judge. Singhbhum at Chaibassa and the case was remitted back to the Executive Magistrate for fresh decision, so far plot No. 858/861 of the disputed land was concerned. 3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of remand by the revisional court is apparently bad because on flimsy ground the case was remanded back to the learned Executive Magistrate and-it was held by him that the first party in the petition u/s. 145, Cr. P.C. and also in the notice of the proceeding disputed land was described as six rooms standing on holding No. 55-A measuring 20 X 40 in ward No. 3 bearing plot No. 858/860 in Dhatkidih block P.S. Bistupur, but the sale-deed was filed in which other details are the same such as ward number holding number etc. and the area but plat No. 858/861. and the area but plat No. 858/861. So the only discrepancy was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that in the proceeding the other details of the land was same but the plat number was 850/860 and though the sale-deed produced an behalf of the first party mentioned plot No. 858/861 and because of the vagueness of plot No. that is whether it should be 858/860 or 858/861, he remitted back the proceeding to the learned Executive Magistrate far a fresh decision only an the paint of disputed land far ascertaining the plat number in question. 4. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that other details of the disputed land were given and only there is slight different in the plat number that is in the proceeding it was plat Na. 860 and in the sale-deed it is 861. But the disputed land was clearly identifiable and bath the parties were clearly understanding the disputed land and plot No. (sic) and the Executive Magistrate also recorded his finding in respect of other details, i.e. holding number words No. etc. In that view of the matter, the proceeding was not suffering from any vagueness and the see and party has also not taken the plea of vagueness at the initial stage i.e. in the trial court itself and in the show cause. 5. On the other hand, learned lawyer far the opposite parties No. 2 submitted that certainly due to wrong plat number the proceeding itself had vitiated and the entire finding is bad in law. 6. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that other details of the disputed land have properly been given such as holding No. area, ward No. etc. and only there is same discrepancy in plat No. i.e. in the proceeding plot No. is mentioned as 858/860; whereas in the sale-deed plat Na. is mentioned as, 850/861. But bath the parties have clearly identified the disputed land and findings had also been correctly recorded. So, on this scare the Additional District Judge was not right in setting aside the findings of the learned Executive Magistrate and remitting the matter to him far fresh decision. is mentioned as, 850/861. But bath the parties have clearly identified the disputed land and findings had also been correctly recorded. So, on this scare the Additional District Judge was not right in setting aside the findings of the learned Executive Magistrate and remitting the matter to him far fresh decision. Similar view was also expressed by a Bench of this Court reported in B. Mukhiya V/s. Sahdeo & Ors.1 and it was held that when the disputed land is clearly distinguishable and identifiable then due to same mistake in the description in the proceeding the proceeding itself will not suffer from vagueness. 7. In the instant case also the disputed land was clearly identifiable and it was known to both the parties from before. In that view of the matter the order of the revisional court setting aside the findings of the learned Executive Magistrate of the ground of vagueness in the proceeding is apparently bad in law and unjustified. 8. In the result, this revision is allowed and the judgment dated 9-7 -1990 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Singhbhum at Chaibassa in Crl. Rev. No. 78/88 is hereby set aside and this application is accordingly allowed.