JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Second party in Crl Misc. Case No. 517 of 1991 of the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambalpur (in short, 'the SDM') has approached this Court challenging the order dated 18.8.97 in which possession was declared in favor of the first party opposite party over the subject matter of dispute. i.e. an area of Ac.2.67 decimals of land in village Kenghati. 2. In the lower Court 1st party claimed title and possession over the case land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 23.3.1991. On the other hand, the 2nd party claimed possession over the case land as a tenant under the erstwhile owner and denied about delivery of possession in favor of the 1st party pursuant to the execution of the read sale deed. 3. It is relevant to note that this stage that the 2nd party approached this Court in Crl: Revision No. 469 of 1991, challenging the initiation of the proceeding and order of attachment of crop. That revision, as stated in the petition, was disposed of with a direction to the S.D.M. to afford reasonable opportunity to the 2nd party to place his case. At the stage of inquiry (hearing) when the 2nd party was not allowed opportunity to examine his witnesses, he approached this Court in Crl. Revision No. 271 of 1997 and as stated in the petition, on 19.4.1997 that revision was disposed of with direction to the S.D.M. to afford opportunity for adducing evidence by the 2nd party. Therefore, the present revision is the third round in the series. 4. During the course of inquiry both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and after completion of that inquiry learned S.D.M. passed the impugned order in which after stating the case of both the parties and without discussing the evidence in record he recorded the finding on possession in favor of the 1st party in the following manner: On perusal of the case record, relevant papers, the deposition available in the case record, I as inclined to open that so far possession is concerned the stands of F.P. carries more weight with the existence of Read sale deed and delivery of possession than the S.P. As such the possession declared in favor of F.P. with consequential result to follow. Intimate all concerned accordingly Le. a.I.c. Sadar P.S. and receiver. 5. Intimate all concerned accordingly Le. a.I.c. Sadar P.S. and receiver. 5. The above quoted order of the S.D.M. undoubtedly goes to show that he has disposed of the case without properly discussing and appreciating the evidence in record and assigning reasons as to why the evidence of the 2nd party was not accepted and what was the oral evidence from the side of the 1st party and how far that was creditworthy. Existence of a sale deed (i) if facto does not give unrepeatable presumption of possession. The factum of possession, which is a physical act, has to be proved in record and in that connection the Magistrate was supposed to record the finding referring to the evidence in record. Learned S.D.M. has failed to decide the dispute in a proper, lawful and systematic manner. Under such circumstance, the impugned order in declaring the possession of 1st party is found legally not sustainable and accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for disposal in accordance with law. 6. Since both the parties have already adduced evidence no further evidence may be accepted unless the Magistrate will think further evidence being necessary. He is to hear argument afresh from both the parties and to dispose of the case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To save the proceeding from further delay parties are directed to appear in the Court of S.D.M., Sambalpur on 21.9.1998. In the event of default in appearance such, party shall not be entitled to fresh notice and in that event learned S.D.M. is to proceed within the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law and within the aforesaid date line prescribed. The Crl. Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed