Proper findings on the date and manner of dispossession and compliance with court directions are essential for a summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Mubarak, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. The judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 32/1987 (subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 375/2006), filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. This is the third round of litigation between the parties pertaining to the same plot of land and therefore, it would be necessary to briefly narrate the factual backdrop of this case. It appears from the record that the respondents had earlier instituted Title Suit No. 107/1983 seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over a plot of land measuring 03B-1K-10¾L covered by Dag No. 534 of Khatian No. 406 described as the 'A' schedule land and also for a decree for ejectment of the defendants from the plot of land measuring 02K falling within the 'A' schedule land which was described as schedule 'B' land. The suit was decreed on 03-07-1985 pursuant whereto, Title Execution Case No. 25/1985 was started for execution of the decree. It is the claim of the respondents/ plaintiffs that the revision petitioner/ defendant was dispossessed from the 'B' schedule land in execution of the decree dated 03-07-1985 which claim has, however, been stoutly denied by the revision petitioner/ defendant.

4. It further appears from the record that the respondents/ plaintiffs had thereafter, instituted Title Suit No. 279/1987 against the petitioner as defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction but the aforesaid suit was ultimately dismissed on 27-09-1993. The respondents as plaintiffs had also instituted Title Suit No. 32/1987 in the court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri on 21-11-1987 seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Title Suit No. 32/1987 was initially decreed by the trial court on 24-07-1992. However, the decree dated 24-07-1992 was challenged by the present petitioner by filing CRP No. 348/1992 before this Court. By the judgment and order dated 05-07-1996, CRP No. 348/1992 was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back for fresh decision by the trial court after appointing Amin Commission so as to carryout survey and submit a report in respect of the disputed land. Accordingly, an Amin Commission was appointed which had submitted a report after conducting the survey. Taking note of the materials available on record including the Amin Commission report, the learned trial court had passed judgment and decree dated 17-07-1998 dismissing the Title Suit No. 32/1987.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-07-1998, the respondents/ plaintiffs had approached this Court by filing CRP No. 341/2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had passed judgment and order dated 18-05-2004 allowing the CRP No. 341/2001 by setting aside the impugned decree and remanding the matter to the trial court with a direction to appoint a fresh Amin Commission so as to ascertain the actual boundary of the land under possession of the plaintiffs and defendants as claimed by the respective parties. Upon being remanded, the suit was decided afresh by the judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 which is under challenge in the instant revision petition.

6. By referring to the impugned judgment dated 31-07-2013, Mr. Banerjee submits that notwithstanding the clear direction of the High Court as contained in order dated 18-05-2004, the learned Munsiff did not appoint any fresh Amin Commission so as to ascertain the actual boundary of the land but had gone on to decree the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs without recording any proper finding on the above aspect of the matter. It is also the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that finding on the material issues regarding ille