JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner armed with the judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.8.1994 of the Court of learned Subordinate Judge-i, Khagaria, in Title Suit No. 4 of 1989 (Annexure-I filed with the supplementary affidavit), prays for the quashing of the order dated 27.1.2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2001 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Khagaria, dismissing the revision as also the order dated 11.5.2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri, in Case No. 125(M) of 1983 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereby the possession over the lands in dispute was declared in favour of the second party who were to remain in possession unless dispossessed by the order of a competent court. 2. The factual matrix germane for deciding the instant application can be delineated from the order of the revisional court. A total area of 3 bighas 6 kathas 18 dhurs spread over several plots was initially recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of one Mauji Sah out of which the disputed lands appertains to Khesra No. 191, Khata No. 59 of Mauja-Mirganj. The total lands recorded in the name of Mauji Sah was auction sold in connection with Rent Case No. 1027 of 1921 which was purchased by one Darbari Mandal who later on sold 2 bighas 14 kathas 15 dhurs out of those lands, other than the disputed lands, to Lal Bihari and others. Darbari Mandal is said to have died in the year 1965 leaving behind three sonsSaryug Mandal, Tejo Mandal and Thakur Mandal who jointly inherited the remaining 12 kathas 3 dhurs of land including the Sands in dispute. It appears that thereafter Tejo Mandal and Thakur Mandal allegedly sold their shares including the lands in dispute to Surendra Prasad Yadav and Suresh Prasad Mandal, the father of the petitioner herein, and they claim to be coming in actual physical possession thereof ever since. Later on Saryug Mandal brought Title Suit No. 4 of 1989 in the nature of a partition suit claiming his 1/3rd share in the said 12 kathas 3 dhurs of land wherein the father of the petitioner herein was impleaded as defendant 2nd set and the said suit was eventually decreed by judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.8.1994. 3. Later on Saryug Mandal brought Title Suit No. 4 of 1989 in the nature of a partition suit claiming his 1/3rd share in the said 12 kathas 3 dhurs of land wherein the father of the petitioner herein was impleaded as defendant 2nd set and the said suit was eventually decreed by judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.8.1994. 3. So far as the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. brought at the instance of Tejo Mandal is concerned, it appears that the same was disposed of by the Executive Magistrate by order dated 15.6.1996 declaring the possession of the 2nd party over t|ae lands in question. However, the members of the 1st party preferred Criminal Revision Nos. 180 of 1996, 112 of 1996 and 127 of 1996 which were disposed of by a common order dated 6.4.1998 by the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, whereby he set aside the order dated 15.6.1996 of the learned Magistrate and remanded back the matter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and the materials available on the record it further appears that pursuant to the order of the revisional court both parties were given sufficient opportunities but the 1st party kept dillydallying with the matter and never sought to bring on record any further evidence, whether oral or documentary, apart from sale deed no. 8293 dated 18.12.1982 which had been exhibited earlier and had already been considered in the earlier order dated,15.6.1996. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold: firstly, that the learned Magistrate had colluded with Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 inasmuch as, that the application by the petitioner for mutation of the disputed lands was stayed by order dated 27.1.2001 of the learned Magistrate and every request and prayer made by the petitioner was orally refuted who eventually passed an ex parte order and secondly, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment and preliminary decree of the Title Suit. 5. So far as the first point is concerned nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations. 6. 5. So far as the first point is concerned nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations. 6. As far as the judgment and decree is concerned, it would appear from a perusal thereof, that the suit was for partition brought by Saryug Mandal who claimed his 1/3rd share in the landed property inherited by the three brothers pursuant to the death of their father wherein the present petitioners father was arrayed as defendant 2nd set. On a specific query made the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the preliminary decree no demarcation of the property was made and takhtas showing the shares of the brothers had never been carved out and as a result thereof the final decree in terms of the judgment had neither been prepared nor executed till today. 7. Admittedly, from the facts discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case of his being in "actual" physical possession over the lands in question notwithstanding more than sufficient opportunity having been afforded to him. In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. the question of "actual possession" is to be determined without any reference to the merits of the claims to a right to possess. 8. In the absence of the petitioner proving his "actual physical possession" over the lands in question I find no occasion to interfere with the orders of the two courts below. Accordingly this application is dismissed.