Pabitra Dutta v. Md. Manib Ansari and 18 Ors

O R D E R

24.05.2024

This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in Title Suit No.33/2012 whereby the learned Court of the Munsiff No.2, North Lakhimpur had dismissed the said suit.

¶2It is relevant to take note of that the said suit was a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession. The only requisite for deciding a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is as to whether the plaintiff has been dispossessed without following the due process of law within 6 months from the date of filing of the suit.

¶3This Court has taken note of the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 and from a perusal of the said impugned judgment and decree, it reveals that from the evidence, the learned Trial Court has come to a categorical finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was in Page No.# 4/4 possession of suit land within 6 months prior to the filing of the suit.

¶4This Court, however, takes note of that the learned Trial Court has also gone into various other issues, i.e. the issues as to whether the plaintiff had right, title, interest and possession over the suit land; whether the defendant No.9 was entitled to get any compensation from the plaintiff for the suit land which was not at all necessary in a suit so filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This Court also observes that there is no perversity in the findings in respect to the Issue No.7 which has been held by the learned Trial Court. However, the Issues which were decided being Issue No.3 and Issue No.4 totally not relevant, the observations so made by the learned Trial Court in the said suit has to be therefore disregarded.

¶5Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the findings as regards the Issue No.7 for which the instant petition stands dismissed. However, this Court for the purpose of clarity makes it clear that the observations so made in respect to Issue Nos.3 & 4 by the learned Trial Court shall not bar or disentitle the plaintiff to file a regular suit for recovery of possession, if so entitled under the law.

¶6LCR be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010024302015 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP/490/2015o PABITRAoDUTTAo S/OoLT.oSUCHILoDUTTA,oR/OoKATHALoPUKHURI,oMOUZA-oNOWBOICHA,o P.S.oLALUK,oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR VERSUSo MD.oMANIBoANSARIoando18oORSo S/OoLT.oSAHIDoANSARI 2:HASENoALI oS/OoLT.oSAMIRUDDIN 3:KHURECHAoKHATOON oW/OoMANIBoANSARI 4:RAHIMoALI oS/OoHUSSENoALI 5:ABDULoHUSSAIN oS/OoBOSIRUDDIN 6:SURABoALI oS/OoLT.oRUSTOMoALI 7:SAHEDoALI oS/OoLT.oAKUBoALI 8:NIRANJANoBISWAS oS/OoLT.oJAGABANDHUoBISWAS oALLoAREoR/OoNO.30oF.C.oGRANT oLALUK oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR PageoNo.#o2/4 9:NIKHILoDAS oS/OoLT.oSURESHoDAS 10:RAMoLOHAR oS/OoLT.oBHARAToLOHAR 11:ABDULoHEKIM oS/OoLT.oAHMEDoPRADHANI oALLoAREoR/OoNO.1oPHULBARIoBASTI oP.O.oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR 12:MD.oAFJALoHUSSAIN oS/OoLT.oAZIMUDDIN oR/OoCHUMANI oP.S.oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR 13:AMIRoHUSSAIN oS/OoLT.oAJIMUDDIN 14:RAMJANoALI oS/OoHAFIJUDDIN oBOTHoAREoR/OoCHUMANI oP.S.oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR 15:ASADALoALI oS/OoSURABoALI oR/OoNO.30oF.C.oGRANT oP.S.oLALUK oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR 16:THEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oREVENUEoDEPTT. oGOVT.oOFoASSAM 17:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONERoCUMoCOLLECTOR oLAKHIMPUR oNORTHoLAKHIMPUR oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR oASSAM 18:THEoCIRCLEoOFFICER oNOWBOICHAoREVENUEoCIRCLE oNOWBOICHA oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR Page No.# 3/4 ASSAM 19:MULUK SINGH LOHAR S/O LT. KARTIK SINGH LOHAR R/O DOOLAHAT NO.30 F.C. GRANT P.S. LALUK DIST- LAKHIMPU For the petitioner (s) : Mrs. P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. A. M. Khan, Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH