1. The dispute between the parties pertains to the possession of a piece of land measuring 5 Kanals 02 Marias comprised in Survey No. 442 of Village Kothra-Darhal falling in District Rajouri. 2. Relying on the Affidavits and Documents produced by Mushtaq Hussain and Barkat Hussain, and refusing to take notice of the photo-copies of the docu­ments produced by M/s Mohammad Qasim, Mohammad Azat and Abdul Ghani, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Rajouri, declared Mushtaq Hussain and Barkat Hussain in possession of the land in question directing delivery of possession thereof to them while concluding proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction and upsetting the learned Executive Magistrate's order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri, has, on the respondents' Revision Petition, directed fresh enquiry into the possession of the land in question. 4. M/s Mushtaq Hussain and Barkat Hussain have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the learned Sessions Judge's order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Although the learned Additional District Magistrate was aware of the legal position that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the question of title over the land was not germane yet he appears to have been influenced by Mushtaq Hussain and another's title over the land on the basis of the Revenue Entries and the findings recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner in this regard. 7. It is true that the learned Additional District Magistrate, the Executive Magistrate had perused the Affidavits of both the parties in the process of deter­mining the possession of the party who was in actual possession of the land on the date of the drawing of the Preliminary Order, but while so doing, he had refused to consider the phota-eopies of the records produced by Mohammad Qasim and others, on the ground that being inadmissible in evidence, the photo-copies, could not be taken into consideration. 8. The learned Executive Magistrate had refused to consider the photo-copies of the Revenue Records taking a hyper- technical view in the matter oblivious of his powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C to direct summoning or production of Official records, referred to in the Affidavits or Statements of the parties to the dispute. 9. 8. The learned Executive Magistrate had refused to consider the photo-copies of the Revenue Records taking a hyper- technical view in the matter oblivious of his powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C to direct summoning or production of Official records, referred to in the Affidavits or Statements of the parties to the dispute. 9. Having come to know that one of the parties was relying upon the photo­copies of the Revenue Records, the learned Magistrate was required to call upon it to produce the certified copies of the Revenue Records/documents or could have on its own, even summoned the original records, so as to deal affectively with the documents relied upon by the party concerned and ensuring that none of the parties was in any way prejudiced in projecting his cause before the Authority empowered to determine the dispute of actual possession of the parties over the land in question. 10. The Revisional Court has, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate requiring him to afford opportunity to the respondents to produce the documents in original, photo-copies whereof had been produced by them on records. It, however, appears to have exceeded its Jurisdiction in commenting upon the merits of the case and that too on misconceived assump­tions and presumptions. Its finding that the learned Additional Magistrate's order suffered from mis-appreciation and perverse finding is unwarranted and unneces­sary. There was no occasion for the Revisional Court to record the finding that there was no apprehension of breach of peace on spot, in that, Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C does not contemplate any such finding while deciding the question whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the drawing of the preliminary order in actual possession of the property in question. 11. The following findings of the Revisional Court cannot, therefore, be sus­tained. 11. The following findings of the Revisional Court cannot, therefore, be sus­tained. "In the absence of any material evidencing eminent threats to breach of peace or parties taking law into their own hands to deprive each other's possession, coupled with the probability that respondents might have realized consideration amount from the petitioner and parted with the possession of the land in question on 16.05.1997 and ultimately coming to know that such transfer of possession is not recognized by law, might have been prompted to take the course to Section 145 Cr.P.C proceeding with a view to gain possession, who thus succeeded in twisting the law to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of petitioners. In this view of the matter, the order impugned suffers from mis-appreciation and perversed finding which does not appear to be logic." 12. Accordingly, setting aside the above findings of the Revisional Court but sustaining its order on the ground that the respondents had been denied opportu­nity to produce original documents or certified copies thereof to support their case, and the learned Magistrate was influenced in recording its finding on actual possession of the land in question, by the projected title of the-petitioners to the land, the matter is remanded to the learned Additional District Magistrate, Rajouri to afford opportunity to the respondents to produce either the originals or the certified copies of the documents/records, photo-copies whereof had been placed by them on records and thereafter decide the question as to which of the two parties was in actual possession of the land in question on the day of the Preliminary Order or within a period of two months prior thereto, perusing the Affidavits and documents produced by the parties, and recording its reasoned findings for holding one or the other party in actual physical possession of the land in question. 13. This Revision Petition is, therefore, disposed of with the above directions.