JUDGMENT : 1. In this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945, (AFR-1945), the petitioner-Shri Tumsen Basar has put to challenge the order, dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang Distric, in Keba Appeal No. 01/2015. 2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 21.03.2018, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Yingkiong had affirm the Keba decision, dated 17.06.2014 and 01.05.2015, by which the Keba had decided that ‘Tako’ paddy field shall be in the permanent possession of Shri Alo Pangkam, the respondent herein. 3. The factual background, being projected by the learned counsel for the parties, which leads to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:- “There was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of a plot of land, which is known as ‘Tako’ paddy field. Pursuant to an order of the Circle Officer, dated 17.04.2015, the Head Gaonburah of Ramsing village, had conducted a local Kebang on 01.05.2015. It was decided in the said Kebang that ‘Tako’ Paddy field shall be in the permanent possession of Shri Alo Pangkam, the respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, being Kebang Appeal No.01/2015, before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Commissioner had forwarded the appeal to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong for disposal. Thereafter, vide judgment and order, dated 04.04.2016, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner; Yingkiong had upheld the decision of Keba held on 17.06.2014, and 01.05.2015. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had preferred one Civil Revision Petition, being CRP No. 11(AP) 2016. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, this court was pleased to set aside the impugned order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong and remanded the matter to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties a fresh and to take a fresh decision. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner heard the matter a fresh and vide impugned order dated 21.03.2018, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner was pleased to dismissed the appeal by passing exactly the replica of the earlier order, dated 04.04.2016.” 4. Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties a fresh and to take a fresh decision. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner heard the matter a fresh and vide impugned order dated 21.03.2018, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner was pleased to dismissed the appeal by passing exactly the replica of the earlier order, dated 04.04.2016.” 4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 04.04.20, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under section 50 of the AFR-1945, on the following grounds:- (i) That, the learned court below erred both in law and fact, by passing the impugned order dated 21.03.2018, which is exactly the same with the earlier order dated 04.04.2016, even though the case took a different turn after cross-examination of the witnesses; (ii) That, the learned court below had failed to appreciate that the Kebang would not have certainly directed the respondent to pay any money as a price of the disputed property, if he was indeed the actual owner and the only issue the petitioner was agitating was that the Kebang could not have compelled the petitioner to sell the property at a sum of Rs. 10,000/ only. (iii) That, the learned court below had failed to frame any issue and not allowed the petitioner to exhibit any documents and thereby cause grave miscarries of justice; (iv) That, the learned court below had failed to appreciate the facts by arriving at a conclusion that prime witness of the petitioner Shri Kaling Apang being only one year old in the year 1974 could not have effected sale of the disputed land to the petitioner, where as evidence reveals that in the year 1974 Kaling Apang was a married person and his second daughter was born in the year 1979. (v) That, the so called documents based upon which the respondent has made claim was not exhibited in terms of Evidence Act and as such it cannot be accepted in evidence. (vi) That, the learned court below had ignored material evidence on record and arrived at a perverse finding which resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. The respondent had not filed any affidavit in opposition herein this case, though sufficient opportunities were afforded to him. 6. I have heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent. 7. Ms. 5. The respondent had not filed any affidavit in opposition herein this case, though sufficient opportunities were afforded to him. 6. I have heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent. 7. Ms. Danggen, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed land belongs to the petitioner and first Keba also said that the petitioner is the owner. Ms. Danggen further pointed out that the impugned judgment and order of the learned court below is the exact replica of the earlier judgment and after cross-examination of the witnesses the same finding cannot be arrived at. Therefore, Ms. Danggen contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 8. On the other hand Mr. M. Pertin, the learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent submits that the date of birth of Kaing Apang was not disputed and his first daughter already got married. Mr. Pertin further submits that there is no more due to Apang and that there is no question of selling Toko Paddy field and there exists no ground for interference of the impugned order. Mr. Pertin therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 9. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order. 10. It appears that the impugned order, dated 21.03.2018, so passed by the learned court below, is exactly the same with its earlier order, dated 04.04.2016, passed in Kebang Appeal No.01/2015. Ms. Danggen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, had rightly pointed this out at the time of hearing. But, it appears that the earlier order was set aside by this court on the ground of not allowing the parties to cross-examine the witnesses at the time of hearing the appeal by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong. Thereafter, as directed by this court, the witnesses were cross-examined. And it appears that even after cross-examination of the witnesses, the factual position remained unchanged. It never took a different turn even after cross-examination also, though Ms. Danggen had submitted during hearing. And that regarding non appreciation of the factum of asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. Thereafter, as directed by this court, the witnesses were cross-examined. And it appears that even after cross-examination of the witnesses, the factual position remained unchanged. It never took a different turn even after cross-examination also, though Ms. Danggen had submitted during hearing. And that regarding non appreciation of the factum of asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ by the Kebang, it appears from the record that the same was asked for with a view to avoid such kind of disputes between the same clan members. 11. It is a fact that the learned court below has not framed any issue while deciding the appeal. But, there is no such mandate, in deciding an appeal under section 46 of the AFR-1945. Section 52 of the AFR-1945 provides that the courts shall be guided by spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure not by the letter. Therefore, non framing of issues by the learned court below, while deciding the appeal, appears to have caused no irregularity, as submitted by Ms. Danggen, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. It appears that the prime witness of the petitioner is Shri Kaling Apang and he is a service man. As per his Service Book his date of birth is 01.04.1973. And as such his age, in the year 1974, was only one year. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed any illegality or impropriety while not accepting the evidence of Kaling Apang that he had received a sum of Rs. 700/ from Mijang Yebu as cost of ‘Tako’ WRC field. Moreover, Mr. Kaling Apang had failed to produce any document in support of his claim. Mr. M. Pertin, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly point this out during argument. And there is substance in his submission and I am inclined to record concurrence to the same. 13. Thus, having examined the impugned order of the learned court below dated 21.03.2018 in Kebang Appeal No. 01/2015, in the light of facts and circumstances on the record, and also in the light of submissions, so advanced by the learned Advocates of bothsides, I find that the learned court below had neither committed any jurisdictional error, nor committed any error in law or in fact, requiring any interference of this court. 14. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.