1. The dispute over possession of land measuring 4 kanals 10 Marias comprised in Khasra No. 277 Min situated at Reasi, between the parties, originated in the year 1987 with registration of FIR No. 121/87 under Sections 435, 447 and 147 RFC at Police Station, Reasi. Apprehending breach of peace on spot regarding possession of the land, Station House Officer, Police Station, Reasi approached learned Executive Magistrate 1st Class (Tehsildar), Reasi, who, acting on his report, initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C, attaching the subject matter of dispute and required the parties to file Affidavits and documents in respect of their possession over the land in question. The proceedings were, however, dropped by him vide his order of September 30, 1999. 2. The Magistrate's order, was found unwarranted on its examination by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi, who accordingly made Reference to this Court recommending setting aside of the Magistrate's order. The Reference was accepted and the learned Magistrate was directed by this Court to pass fresh orders after returning clear finding as to which of the two parties was in possession of the land at the relevant time. On re-examination of the issue regarding possession, the learned Magistrate, held the respondents in possession, and directed delivery of the possession of land to them vide his order of August 13, 2001. In coming to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession of the land at the time of attachment and even prior thereto, the learned Magistrate, relied, inter alia, on the findings returned by this Court in respondents' Writ Petition, OWP No.82/78, decided on 11.02.1999, whereby the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had questioned Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur's direction to Tehsildar Reasi to dispossess them under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was found unsustainable by this Court, for, having been issued without following the principles of Natural Justice in not providing opportunity of hearing to the respondents who were in possession thereof. 3. In dealing with the Affidavits of the parties, learned Magistrate was of the view that those could not be relied upon as the statements appearing therein appeared to have been made backed by religious sentiments. 3. In dealing with the Affidavits of the parties, learned Magistrate was of the view that those could not be relied upon as the statements appearing therein appeared to have been made backed by religious sentiments. The order passed by learned Magistrate was questioned by the present petitioners in Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Reasi, but without success. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by their second Revision which was held non-maintainable by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2008. After dismissal of their Revision Petition, the petitioners have again approached this Court seeking quashing of proceedings and orders of the learned Executive Magistrate and Ld Sessions Judge, Reasi invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners' learned counsel questioned the Preliminary Order of learned Magistrate on the same grounds on which their challenge thereto had failed in the earlier round of litigation upto this Court. The plea raised by the petitioners questioning the Preliminary Order cannot, therefore, be entertained to maintain judicial comity. 4. The next contention of the petitioners' learned counsel is that learned Magistrate did not peruse and critically examine the Affidavits filed by the parties which he was otherwise required so to do in terms of the provisions of Section 145 Cr. P.C., his order, without such examination, was, therefore, illegal, hence liable to be set aside and quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. There is no merit in the petitioners' learned counsel's submission, for, the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons in disbelieving the Affidavits filed before him and has taken into consideration the material on records including the findings returned by this Court in respondents' Writ Petition OWP No.82/78, while recording his finding holding respondents in possession of the land. Although the findings of the Civil Court, in Writ Petition OWP No.82/78, holding the respondents in possession of land in question should have been sufficient enough to declare the respondents in possession of the land, yet learned Magistrate has supported his findings relying additionally on other material available on records, which supported the respondents' possession over the land in question. The evidence produced by the petitioners to support their plea of being in possession of the land has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate and the reasons given by him therefor do not suffer from any error of law. 5. Although the pleas projected by the petitioners, are purely factual in nature which cannot be gone into by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and which may be exercised only if, the interests of justice so warrant or there was error(s) apparent on the face of records warranting interference, yet the perusal of evidence on records and the discussion thereon by the learned Executive Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, demonstrates that even on farts, there is no scope for interference with the orders which are well reasoned. The findings returned by learned Executive Magistrate First Class, Reasi holding the respondents in possession of the land in question and his order directing delivery of possession thereof to the respondents, therefore, warrants no interference. 561-A Cr. P. C No. 112/2008 is, accordingly, dismissed lifting Interim order dated 5.6.2010.