Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated March 31, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur in Title Suit No.38 of 2008 thereby dismissing the suit under Section 6 of the Special Relief Act.
(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No.38 of 2008 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the defendants before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur praying for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs were in lawful possession of the suit property, for a decree for recovery of khas possession and other reliefs with regard to the properties, as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. THE plaintiffs were in possession of the said suit properties and they are residing thereon. THE defendant no.1 came to the plaintiffs and stated that he was interested in purchasing the suit properties and he is willing to pay the consideration money. When the plaintiffs refused his prayer, the defendant no.1 became furious and he threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property forcibly. Ultimately, on November 1, 2007, the defendant no.1 with his men and agents drove out the plaintiffs from the suit properties and thus, he took forcible possession. THEreafter, the plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. But the suit was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the defendants have denied all the contentions raised in the plaint. So, the plaintiffs are required to prove the ingredients as per provision of Section 6 of the Special Relief Act to have a decree for recovery of possession under the said section, such as, the plaintiffs must show that before the date of dispossession, they were in possession of the suit property. They were dispossessed by the defendants and that within the time permitted under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, they filed the suit for recovery of possession, that is, within six months from the date of taking forcible possession from the plaintiffs. In this respect, evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, I find, is scanty. So, I have decided to send back the case to the learned Trial Judge on remand for decision afresh. There is not enough evidence with regard to the abovementioned three ingredients. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that at the time of dispossession, he was not in the scene and he was not dispossessed directly but his nephew, namely, one Satyam Baidya, who was in charge of that properties on the relevant date of dispossession and such Satyam Baidya was dispossessed from the suit properties by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs were ousted from the suit properties. Satyam Baidya is, therefore, an important witness and he should have been examined by the plaintiffs. I have stated above that the essential ingredients of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act have not been proved in order to get relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. If I discuss the same in details, my observations are likely to prejudice the mind of the learned Trial Court in order to arrive to a conclusion independently by him.
(3.) THEREFORE, without going into the details into the matter, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the learned Trial Judge for giving opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The revisional application, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside. The suit is sent back on remand to the learned Trial Judge.;