ORDER

Date : 06-01-2021 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Borchetia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2) The plaintiff in T.S. No. 102/2007 is the applicant in I.A. (C) 68/2020. The applicant in I.A. (C) 2606/17 is the defendant in the said suit. The suit was for declaration, eviction from the suit premises. In the said suit, the defendant had filed her written statement- cum- counter- claim, inter-alia, seeking declaration that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule-A of the written statement, and, as such, she had no right to dispossess the defendant from her landed property; for declaration that the plaintiff is duty bound to refund the sum of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant along with interest @ 22% p.m. as she took it from the defendant as the value of land described in Schedule-B of the written statement; and alternatively, if the Court deems it fit and the plaintiff is the owner of the said landed property, she may be directed to execute and register the formal sale deed in favour of the defendant within the date fixed by the Court; perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, her men, etc., from trespassing into the land property of the defendant described in Schedule-A and/or dispossessing her from her landed property and/or harassing her in any way; and for other reliefs.

3) The applicant in I.A. (C) 2606/17 is the appellant in the connected RSA 64/2018 and the applicant in I.A. (C) 68/2020 is the respondent therein, as such, the parties are referred to as the appellant and respondent for the sake of convenience.

4) As per the plaint, the suit premises is consisting of two rooms measuring 25’ X 15’ made of kutcha floor, bamboo wall, CI sheet roof standing on a plot of land measuring 131/ lessas covered by Dag No. 150 of Periodic Patta No. 362 of Gabharupathar Ward (2nd

48 Part), Dibrugarh Town Mouza, in the district of Dibrugarh. However, in the written statement two schedules has been mentioned. Schedule-A is a plot of land measuring more or less 70’ in length and 14’ in breadth, covered by Dag No. 150/152/203/204 under P.P. No. 55/362 situated at A.T. Road, Naliapool, Gabharupathar Ward, Dibrugarh Town Mouza and the house premises standing thereon which is roofing with CI sheet, bamboo made posts and wall, together with facilities of latrine, tubewell, etc. Schedule-B land is the same land as described by the plaintiff in the plaint.

5) By judgment and decree dated 24.05.2010, the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh had decreed the TS 102/2007 and dismissed the counter-claim. The appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was registered as T.A. No. 19/2020. The learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh by its first appellate judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012, held that the respondent herein did not produce any document to show that the appellant was a tenant and so the appellant was not a tenant under the respondent and so there is no question of default in payment of rent. Accordingly, the decree passed by the learned trial Court was reversed by dismissing the suit by holding that the appellant herein was not a tenant under the respondent herein.

6) The aggrieved respondent had preferred a revision against the first appellate judgment and decree, which was registered and numbered as CRP 95/2012. Against the dismissal of the dismissal of the counter-claim, the appellant had preferred a revision, which was registered and numbered as CRP 207/2012. This Court heard both the revision together and by a common judgment and order dated 31.05.2016, the CRP 207/2012 was dismissed as not maintainable as the decree for dismissal of counter-claim was appealable. However, the CRP 95/2012 was allowed by restoring the decree passed by the learned trial Court.

7) Thereafter, on 14.06.2016, the appellant had filed a second appeal under section 100 CPC, wh