SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 851

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi, JJ.
SUSHIL KUMAR DEY BISWAS & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
ANIL KUMAR DEY BISWAS – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10689 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.29686 of 2013)
Decided On : 3-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing the application for restoration of possession cannot be the reason for declining relief.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Application for restoration of possession – Dismissed on ground of delay – Delay in filing the application for restoration of possession cannot be the reason for declining relief. (Para 9)

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Application for restoration of possession – dispossession occurring in 2005 – Defendants neither raising any objection nor filing any application in court – Restoration can be decided along with the suit. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellants-defendants. The eviction was sought for in respect of one room, one bath and privy on the first floor and one room on the ground floor in the western side and one shop room measuring 20’ x 12’ in the western side of premises.

       During the trial the defendants filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. on 4.1.2012, seeking restoration of possession of the suit property.

       The trial court dismissed the petition.

       The appellants filed revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition observing that the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. is vague and that the appellants have approached the court belatedly. However, the High Court gave liberty to the appellants to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Delay in filing the application for restoration of possession cannot be the reason for declining relief.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

ORDER

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the Order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No.718 of 2013, dismissing the civil revision filed by the appellants-defendants declining to order restoration of possession of the suit property and also the staircase.

3. Brief facts, which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No.196/2004 against the appellants-defendants 4th before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Sealdah, North 24-Parganas. The eviction was sought for in respect of one room, one bath and privy on the first floor and one room on the ground floor in the western side and one shop room measuring 20’ x 12’ in the western side of premises No. 59, Old Nimta Road, North 24-Parganas. The appellants-defendants filed their written statement interalia contending that the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and claiming a share in the suit property by virtue of a settlement dated 11.12.2000. The appellants contended that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to only one third share in the suit property.

4. In the suit, trial commenced and respondent-plaintiff adduced evidence and the appellants-defendants also adduced their evidence in part. When the matter was posted for further evidence of the defendants, they filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. on 4.1.2012, contending that the respondent took the law in his own hands in June 2011 and the appellants were forcefully dispossessed from the shop room of the suit property. The appellants alleged that they were also forcibly dispossessed from the first floor room by chopping the wooden staircase that leads to the first floor room.

5. The appellants filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking restoration of possession of the suit property. By an order dated 9.10.2012, the trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that:-(i) even though the alleged dispossession was in June 2011, the restoration application was filed on 4.1.2012 nearly seven months after the alleged dispossession; (ii) trial has already begun and the evidence of the defendants is nearly on the verge of completion. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the appellants filed revision before the High Court. The High Court appointed a Special Officer to inspect the suit property and file a report. Accordingly, the Special Officer visited the suit premises and submitted the report observing that there is no trace of any structure for a staircase excepting a vacant narrow space which according to the special officer is apparently indicative of the location of the staircase in question. The High Court dismissed the revision petition observing that the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. is vague and that the appellants have approached the court belatedly. However, the High Court gave liberty to the appellants to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties at considerable length.

7. In the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., the appellants have alleged as under:-

“…in June, 2011….they were forcefully dispossessed from the shop room of the schedule “B” property without due process of law….. the matter was informed for the first time to the local MP who requested the local police to look into the matter, but instead to make an enquiry the plaintiff again dispossessed the defendants from the possession of the first floor room by chopping of the steps of the wooden stair case that leads to the first floor room. The rooms on the first floor and the shop room in the ground floor are in absolute occupation of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.1 was in possession of the other room in the ground floor from wherein he was forcefully dispossessed in the year 2005…”

8. Courts below dismissed the application filed under Section 1




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top