Possession can be restored under Section 144 CPC despite no tenant eviction suit being filed, as established by previous court orders.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 297 of 2023 PANKAJ SINGHAL Versus ACHAL PRADHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.

ORDER This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in MJC No. 409/2018, by which application filed by respondents under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of possession has been allowed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondents filed an application under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC on the ground that earlier Babulal was in possession of the property in dispute in the capacity of tenant. He expired on 1/9/1982, and thereafter, his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi became the tenant. She too expired on 8/10/1993. After the death of Smt. Saraswati Devi, her daughter Kasturi Devi handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises, and in lieu thereof, applicants waived their arrears of rent. It was claimed that Kasturi Bai had removed her belongings from the tenanted premises. Babulal was Signature Not Verified survived by four daughters, namely Anguri Devi, Sheela Devi, Kalawati, and Smt. Kasturi Devi. Anguri Devi, Sheela Devi, Kalawati, and their cousin brother Pawan Kumar, filed a civil suit against respondents as well as Smt. Kasturi Kasturi Devi. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by plaintiffs, which was rejected by the trial court. The miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed by III Additional District Judge, Gwalior by order dated 15/4/1996. Against the order passed by the appellate court, plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 547/1996 . Aforesaid civil revision was finally disposed of by order dated 8/8/1996. It was held by the High Court that since plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are residing outside the city of Gwalior, therefore, it cannot be said that they are in actual possession of the property in dispute. It was also held that the disputed premises is under lock. One lock has been put by the landlord, i.e., respondents, another lock has been put by plaintiffs, i.e., Smt. Anguri Devi, Smt. Sheela Devi, Smt. Kalawati and Pawan Kumar, and third lock has been put by Kasturi Devi. Merely because plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were residing outside the city of Gwalior, therefore, it was held by the High Court that it appears that Smt. Kasturi Devi must be in possession of the property in dispute as she is the resident of Gwalior, and accordingly, it was directed that not only the locks be opened and possession be handed over to Smt. Kasturi Devi, but the articles kept in the premises be also handed over to Smt. Kasturi Devi. It was also mentioned in the order dated 8/8/1996, passed in Civil Revision No. 547/1996 that this order would continue till the disposal of the civil suit. Later on, the civil suit was dismissed, and it was held that plaintiff No. 4, Pawan Kumar, is not the legal Signature Not Verified representative of Babulal. The appeal filed by plaintiffs was also dismissed, and second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, Anguri Devi filed another suit, which was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 21/8/2007 on the ground of res judicata. The appeal filed by Anguri Devi was also dismissed by judgment dated 28/3/2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18A/2008 . Thereafter, it appears that respondents approached this court and, ultimately, by order dated 20/2/2018, passed in RP No. 107/2016, a liberty was granted to approach the trial court under Section 144 of CPC. Accordingly, the application under Section 144 of CP