Jayanta Kumar Biswas J. - (1.) Sulekha, the appellant in the AST, is aggrieved by a single Judge judgement and order dated January 28, 2014 allowing a WP No.7757(W) of 2013 dated March 11, 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the fourth respondent.
(2.) Prafulla's WP case was this. He filed a T.S.No.62 of 2006 against Sulekha for an eviction decree. The civil Judge passed an ex parte decree on February 2, 2006. He instituted T.Ex.No.9 of 2006 for recovery of possession and filed an application under O.XXI, r.97 CPC. On August 11, 2011 he deposited costs for police help. On January 24, 2012 he took possession of the property, a shop, with police help. On the night of January 26, 2012 Sulekha took possession of the property breaking open the padlock. He informed the police in writing. The police informed him about registration of Domjur P.S.Case No.65 of 2012 and its ending in a charge-sheet. The police, however, "did not take any step to remove the trespasser."
(3.) Contending that though the police were under an obligation to remove the trespasser from the property, did not take necessary steps, Prafulla prayed for a mandamus commanding the police to take steps for removal of the trespasser from the property and give him possession thereof.;