IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10689 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.29686 of 2013)
SUSHIL KUMAR DEY BISWAS & ANR. ..Appellants
Versus
ANIL KUMAR DEY BISWAS ..Respondent
Brief facts, which led to the filing of this appeal areas follows:- Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No.196/2004 against the appellants-defendants before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th 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 plaintiffis entitled to only one third share in the suit property. 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. The appellants filed an application under Section151 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….read more