revision petitioner are without any substance. Perusal of the file transpires that as per the version of the complainant, accused trespassed in his shop at about 8.00 p.m.on 15.12.2010 and gave injuries to him. Jagsir Singh CW3, Sandeep Kaur CW4 and Gurbinder Singh CW5, eye witnesses of the occurrence, have also stated that the occurrence took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 15.12.2010. However, perusal of the copy of the MLR placed on the file reveals that complainant was medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo at 6.50 p.m. on 15.12.2010 i.e. about one hour and 10 minutes prior to the occurrence. No explanation or justification is forthcoming from the side of the complainant as to how he had got himself medically examined prior to the time of the occurrence, as disclosed by him. There could have been variation of 15-20 minutes in reporting the time of the concurrency, but it cannot be expected that all the witnesses would differ about reporting the time of occurrence. Consequently, keeping in view the positive time mentioned in the medical record with regard to the admission of the complainant in the hospital and the time of occurrence disclosed by the complainant and his witness, the case of the complainant appears to be doubtful. As such, it is found that the learned trial court has rightly refused to summon the respondents as accused in this case. Even otherwise, the scope of the reversionary court to interfere into such type of orders is very limited. Ordinarily the Reversionary Court will not interfere with the order passed by the court of first instance in a revision petition, if the impugned order is not found to be suffering from any arbitrariness, illegality or perversity so as to warrant any interference there from this court. While exercising the revisional powers, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial court. Also there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rendered by the trial Court and, therefore, the same is upheld. Consequently, the instant revision petition fails
