JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit, claiming therethrough hence rendition, of, a decree, of, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit property, and, from the suit property whereof, he, prior, to, the extant suit becoming instituted, hence, became illegally dispossessed rather, by, the defendants, became dismissed, under, the impugned verdict, and, hence brings grievance, for, the plaintiff''s, and, leads him, to, thereagainst, hence, constitute before this Court, rather, for, nullifying the verdict, of, dismissal pronounced, upon, Civil Suit No. 152-1 of 2002, the, extant appeal. 2. It is not in contest, amongst the, contesting litigants, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff''s share, in the suit property rather remaining intact, dehors defendant No.1, purchasing, in, auction proceedings, the share thereon, of one Mangat Ram, and, of one Kirpa Ram. 3. Be that as it may, the plaintiff, in proof, of, his becoming illegally, and, unauthorizedly dispossessed, from, the suit property, and, qua wherewith, he, instituted a suit, for, pronouncing qua him, a, decree rather, for, possession thereof becoming restored to him, from, the defendants, hence stepped into witness box, and, during his examination-in-chief, he tendered into evidence, an, affidavit wherein, (i) he made reliance(ies), upon, the FIR bearing No. 25 of 2002, of, 15.3.2002, lodged with Police Station Theog, constituting therein, offences under Sections 448, 427, and, Section 34 of IPC, against the defendants, (i) he also placed reliance, upon, Ext. PW-1/A, mentioning therein, the, articles belonging to him, and, theirs'' becoming removed, from, the suit premises, by, the defendants, upon, theirs making unlawful ingresses thereinto, and, thereafter theirs'' unlawfully dispossessing, the, plaintiff, from, the suit premises. The deposition of the plaintiff, has, become succored, by the deposition, of, the other plaintiff''s witnesses. Furthermore, the plaintiff, had also placed reliance, upon, Ext. DX, tendered into evidence, by, the defendants, and, more particularly he testified, vis-a-vis, the afore exhibits, also appertaining to the suit premises, and, also, espoused vis-a-vis the afore exhibits, constituting a valid, and, firm documentary proof, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff''s possession, and, rested, his, afore espousal hence, upon, the defendants admission, vis-a-vis, the valid drawing of Ext. DX. Though the effect, of, the afore acquiesces, made by DW-1, vis-a-vis, the factum, of, valid drawing of Ext. DX, and, also when the plaintiff, has connected Ext. DX. Though the effect, of, the afore acquiesces, made by DW-1, vis-a-vis, the factum, of, valid drawing of Ext. DX, and, also when the plaintiff, has connected Ext. DX, vis-a- vis, the suit premises, and, importantly with echoings becoming borne therein, vis-a-vis, the apt possession thereof, becaming handed over to the plaintiff, besides, when hence the plaintiff''s suit, was, amenable, for, becoming decreed, rather on anvil thereof, (i) yet, the learned trial Court, has untenably declined to assign, any, probative vigors thereto. In aftermath, the deassignings rather , by, the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, probative vigors hence thereto, rather warrants interference, from, this Court. 4. Furthermore, Ext. PW-1/B, enumerates therein, the articles kept in the suit premises, by, the plaintiff, and, theirs becoming illegally thrown out therefrom, in sequel, to the defendants, rather assuming unauthorized possession thereof, (i) yet, the learned trial Judge declined, to, assign thereto, the espoused sanctity on account(s), qua it becoming fictiously drawn, (ii) moreso, given, Leela Nand Sharma, DW-3, while stepping into witness box, denying, in his examination-in-chief, vis-a-vis, the articles mentioned in the list, as, appended therewith, becoming recovered, at the instance of the defendants, and, also his denying qua theirs belonging to the plaintiff. Noticeably, upon anvil, of, the afore deposition, the learned trial Judge concluded, vis-a-vis, the afore documents, becoming fictitiously drawn, besides, on anvil of, the, cancellation report, becoming prepared, by the Investigating Officer concerned, vis-a-vis, the afore FIR, hencethe learned trial Judge concluded qua rather strengthened vigor becoming assigned, vis-a-vis, the afore inference, vis-a-vis, PW-1/B becoming factiously drawn. However, the afore reasons, are, faulty, and, warrant interference, as, DW-3 did not deny, the, occurrence, of his valid signatures, upon, Ext. PW-1/B, and, whereupon hence he from, the envisaged mandate, occuring, in, Section 91, and, Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather became statutorily estopped to, depose at variance, vis-a-vis, the scribed recitals borne therein, (i) thereupon his oral evidence rendered in contradiction, to the recitals, borne in Ext. PW-1/B, become irrelevant. Conspicuously, and, reiteratedly, with his not denying, the, occurrence, of, his signatures thereon. In aftermath, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, vis-a-vis, the contents of Ext. PW-1/B, become irrelevant. Conspicuously, and, reiteratedly, with his not denying, the, occurrence, of, his signatures thereon. In aftermath, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, vis-a-vis, the contents of Ext. PW-1/B, dehors, the contrary therewith oral deposition, of, DW-3, hence becoming proven, and, hence the list appended thereto, and, enumerating the articles, illegally evacuated, from, the suit premises, by, the defendants, also, becoming proven, to, belong to the plaintiff, and, also hence concomitantly, the defendants assuming, illegal, and, unauthorized, possession, of, the suit premises, though, previously obviously, held by the plaintiff, whereupon he became entitled, to, rendition of, a, decree of restoration, of, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit premises, from, the defendants. 5. Be that as it may, even the mere, filing, of, a cancellation report, vis-a-vis, the afore FIR, has, constrained, an, untenable conclusion, from, the learned Civil Judge, qua, hence also Ext. PW-1/B, becoming proven to be fictitiously drawn, more importantly, also when the purported cancellation report, has not been proven, to, become presented, before the learned Magistrate concerned, hence by the Investigating Officer concerned nor when it has been proven, qua it, becoming accepted, by the learned Magistrate concerned. Moreover, even if assuming, the, afore cancellation report became accepted, by, the learned Magistrate concerned, nonetheless, the learned Civil Judge concerned, was, enjoined to independent therefrom, hence make, a, reasoned pronouncement, vis-a-vis, the vigors of Ext. DX, and, of Ext. PW-1/B, whereupon, rather for all the afore reasons, this court is constrained to make interference, with, the afore made verdict, by, the learned trial Judge. 6. In view of the above observations, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has not, appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, and, the same suffers, from, a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, there is merit in the instant petition, hence, it is allowed, and, the impugned verdict, is, quashed and set aside, and, the defendants are ordered to vacate, and, handover the vacant possession, of, the suit property, to, the plaintiff. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.