Point of Law: Sub-section 2(a) of section 6 stipulates that no suit under the said section shall be brought after expiry of six months from date of dispossession and sub-section (2)(b) of said Section 6 stipulates that no suit shall be brought against Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents in-spite of service of notice.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the judgment and decree dated 26/06/2019 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 73/2010. The brief facts of the instant case is that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for restoration of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the suit that on 25/06/2010 at about 10 a.m., the defendants trespassed upon the suit land and threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences unless the plaintiff leaves the suit land and consequently, the plaintiff was compelled to leave the suit land. The plaintiff has also filed an FIR before the Algapore Police Station, which was registered and numbered as Algapore PS Case No. 197/2010, corresponding to GR Case No. 933/2010. It is on the basis of the said cause of action, the suit was filed on 11/08/2010.

3. Pursuant to the said suit being filed, the petitioners herein as defendants filed a joint written statement wherein it was denied that on 25/06/2010, the defendants trespassed into the suit land and threatened the plaintiff. It was the specific case of the defendants in their written statement that 50 years back, the land was non-agricultural one and the father of the defendants was in possession of the suit land by using the suit land for cultivation and dwelling houses. Thereafter, the grandfather of the defendants filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi, for getting a certificate of suit land along with other land and also filed a petition for getting the names of the defendants recorded as tenants and the defendants and the grandfather of the defendants acquired right, interest and possession over the suit land since long back.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as, three issues were framed, which are :-

(i) Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

(ii) Whether the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of possession?

5. During the trial, the plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses, who were, however, not cross examined and the defendant did not adduce any evidence. The Court of Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi by the judgment and decree dated 24/08/2012, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, whereby, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for recovery of the khas possession by evicting the defendants, their agents etc. there-from and by way of demolishing the house etc. constructed thereon by the defendants during their stay.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioners herein as appellants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24/08/2012 passed in Title Suit No. 73/2010. The Appellate Court by an order dated 18/07/2014 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial Court under the provision of Order XLI Rule 23 with a direction to the trial Court to re-admit the suit in its original number and allow the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses and thereafter give chance to them to adduce evidence either documentary or oral to contest the suit and thereafter, deliver the judgment afresh.

7. Pursuant to the order passed by the First Appellate Court, the trial Court while deciding the issue No.2, had on the basis that Ext. 1 came to a finding that the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit land. On the basis thereof, held that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit land. However, there was no discussion as to whether the plaintiff was dispossessed on 25/06/2010. Be that as it may, the suit was again decreed by the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2016, in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession