JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner complains that the Financial Commissioner had erred in passing, an order dated November 19, 1998. By this order, the claim of the respondents for rendition of accounts filed against the petitioner has been accepted. 2. Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is contrary to the statement made by Chander Singh, the 2nd respondent. 3. Admittedly, the parties own 366 Kanals 9 Marlas of land. Chander Singh claimed half-share in this property. During the course of the statement, he alleged that he was in cultivating possession of only 66 Kanals. The remaining land was being cultivated by Sis Ram etc. since Kharif 1982. Thus, it is clear that the basic allegation of the plaintiff-respondent was that the present petitioner was in possession of area in excess of his share. On this basis, it was claimed that he was liable to render the accounts and pay the dues. In view of the categorical statement of the 2nd respondent, the contention that the decision is contrary to the evidence on record cannot be sustained. 4. Besides the above, it also deserves notice that the present petitioner had appeared as a witness. In his statement, he categorically admitted that he is in possession of not only his half-share, but also the share of Udey son of Ram Jeewan. It was categorically admitted that "the remaining half-share of Udey, which had been given to Chander Singh etc., is also in his possession because as per the family partition, we were cultivating the land of Udey for the last 30 years......." Thus, it is clear that the petitioner himself had admitted that he was in possession of land, which was far in excess of his share. 5. In view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no merit. It is, in fact, contrary to the petitioners own statement. 6. Mr. Puri contends that the Assistant Collector and the Collector have found that the 2nd respondent had admitted that he was in possession of half-share of the land. 7. This finding is totally contrary to the evidence on the file. It cannot be supported by anything on the record. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is a misuse of the process of Court. 7. This finding is totally contrary to the evidence on the file. It cannot be supported by anything on the record. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is a misuse of the process of Court. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Petition dismissed.