JUDGMENT 1. -This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur whereby she upholding the order of the Magistrate dated 18.9.1995 dismissed the petitioner's revision petition. 2. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate as also the learned Addl. Sessions Judge have committed error in not issuing process against the respondent. He points out that the dispute of Plot No. 2 has been discussed in the final report, whereas the dispute pertained to Plot No. 3 and 3-A. According to him, the entire police investigation was around Plot No. 2 and therefore the F.R. ought not to have been accepted by the Magistrate. 3. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. 4. Admittedly the petitioner had filed a revision against the order dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Magistrate rejecting the protest petition and that revision was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.11.1995. This misc. petition is thus nothing but second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition, which is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. It is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Even on merits there is no substance in the contentions of Mr. Dhillon. After the police gave final report, the Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses. The learned Magistrate has passed the order on the basis of those statements. He noticed that there is marked discrepancy in the oral evidence and the documentary evidence. According to Padma Jain, first informant petitioner she had received possession of the plots for the first time on 22.1.1994 and she had placed some articles in them on 25.1.1994. She further says that she had purchased the plots vide registered sale deeds Ex. A-1 and A-2. It has been noticed by the learned Magistrate that in these two documents it is recorded that the possession was given some 20 years ago. There is thus material discrepancy in the oral evidence of Padma Jain, complainant and the documentary evidence produced by her. The learned Magistrate was therefore perfectly justified in not issuing process against the respondents. He has passed the order considering all the material on record. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, also after considering the entire materials has passed the speaking order. The learned Magistrate was therefore perfectly justified in not issuing process against the respondents. He has passed the order considering all the material on record. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, also after considering the entire materials has passed the speaking order. There is absolutely no cause to interfere in the impugned orders. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. *******