BHOLANATH BONDOPADHYAY Vs. BANARSILAL SARAF AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was obtained by the petitioner whose application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code was rejected by the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts, Gauhati. The facts are that the opposite parties obtained a decree against Jyotinath Chakravarty and Anr. in Title Suit No. 67 of 1955 of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Gauhati and in execution of that decree they were put in possession of the land covered by the decree on 27th June 1958.

(2.) THE learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended before me that the learned Subordinate Judge acted illegally in directing that the application under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C. should be rejected. His contention was that since it was by the writ of the court that the petitioner was dispossessed from a portion of his property, it was upto the court by exercising its inherent power, to restore the petitioner to possession of the land from which he has boon illegally dispossessed. I feel constrained to hold that with a view to judge whether the application would lie, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C. need consideration. It is worded as follows:

(3.) I do not think that the argument of the learned Advocate General that by exercise of the inherent power the party should be restored to possession, can take the matter very far. Even if we assume that Section 151, Civil P. C. had application, - - since the learned Subordinate Judge failed to exercise such discretion, I do not think that I as a court of revision will be justified in interfering with the impugned order under Section 151, Civil P. C. as all the circumstances leading to the dispute are not known to this Court nor can I be sure, consequently, as to whether it is necessary for the ends of justice to interfere. I accordingly discharge the rule but make no order as to costs.