Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.6.92 passed by Shri M.P. Sinha, Executive Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 282 of 1980 which was a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Cr. P.C. thereby and thereunder the proceeding was decided and possession of O.P. Vakil Sao who was the 1st party in the proceeding was declared. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that the aforesaid proceeding was 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding in respect of 3 acres of land of plot No. 134 of village Pundari, P.S. Katkamsundi, District Hazaribagh. It was the case of the 1st party i.e. O.P. here that the disputed land to the extent of 3 acres out of total area of 7 acres of plot No. 134 of village Pundari was taken in settlement by the father of the 1st party by virtue of Hukumnama from the ex-landlord Churamani Devi and from that time they wee in possession of the disputed land on payment of rent to the ex-landlady, and also to the State of Bihar. It was the case of the 1st party that for the same disputed land a criminal case was instituted in which members of the 2nd party, Bhulan Sew and Srimati Runia Devi were convicted and sentenced by Sri J.N.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribah and even the appeal preferred by the accused persons, was dismissed with modification in sentence. Further more for the same land there was 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding in the year 1977 and in the Gram Panchayat Kutchery the members of the 2nd party were also convicted for cutting wood from the disputed land belonging to the members of the 1st party. 3. On the other hand it was the case of the 2nd party that Bhulan Saw came in possession of 10 crores of land of plot No. 134 of village Pundari by virtue of settlement and some portion of the land was sold by the members of the 2nd party to different persons and the disputed land remained in possession of the 2nd party and 2nd party is paying rent and in possession of the same. 4. 4. Both the parties filed documentary evidence and adduced oral evidence and first of all the proceeding was decided by Shri R.L. Choudhary, Executive Magistrate, Hazaribagh vide its judgment dated 27.1.86 but that was set aside this Court in Cr. revision and the case was remanded back to the learned Executive Magistrate for fresh decision and according to observation of this Court. This matter was again heard and decided by Shri M.P. Sinha, Executive Magistrate. Against that order this revision had been preferred. 5. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that learned Executive Magistrate considered the oral and documentary evidence and then came to the conclusion that the 1st party i.e. O.P. here got the disputed land by virtue of settlement from the ex-landlord and is also paying rent and in criminal case in respect of the disputed land the members of the 2nd party were convicted and thus, came to the conclusion that the 1st party is in possession of the disputed land. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners i.e. 2nd parties in the Court below, contended that on behalf of petitioners sale deed was executed by Bhulan Saw in favour of Rungta Devi and some rent receipts were filed out those documents were not considered and so the case may be remanded back to the learned Executive Magistrate for fresh decision. 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment it can be said that the learned Executive Magistrate considered the documents also filed on behalf of 2nd parties but has not discussed those documents in detailed but from the judgment itself it appears that he has considered the case of both the parties as a whole. In that view of the matter, non-discussion a out some of the documents in detailed, filed by the 2nd parties, Will not vitiate the proceeding at all. 8. In the result, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this revision and so its is dismissed and the aggrieved 2nd parties of the proceeding can very well file a regular civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the disputed land.