Page No.# 1/ vs Chaliha Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 5018 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs Chaliha Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd on 27 May, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                               Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010002252017




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:6994

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP/34/2025

         SMTI BINA CHOUDHURY and 4 ORS.
         W/O LATE GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY, R/O J.C. DAS ROAD, PANBAZAR,
         GUWAHATI-781001

         2: SRI DEBANANDA CHOUDHURY
          S/O LATE GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY
          R/O J.C. DAS ROAD
          PANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI-781001

         3: SRI ARUPANANDA CHOUDHURY
          S/O LATE GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY
          R/O J.C. DAS ROAD
          PANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI-781001

         4: SRI BIJOYANANDA CHOUDHURY
          S/O LATE GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY
          R/O J.C. DAS ROAD
          PANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI-781001

         5: SMTI GITA DAS
         W/O SRI RATUL DAS
          D/O LATE GIRIJANANDA CHOUDHURY
          R/O UZAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI-78100

         VERSUS

         CHALIHA WAREHOUSING CO. PVT. LTD.
         A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING
         ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ANANDA KUTIR CAMPUS, PINAKI PATH, ZOO
         NARENGI ROAD, ERSTWHILE ANANDA KUTIR ROAD, SARUMATARIA,
                                                                Page No.# 2/10

          GUWAHATI- 781003, AND ANOTHER OFFICE AT THE PREMISES OF M/S
          CHALIHA WAREHOUSING COMPANY PVT. LTD., G.S ROAD,
          SARUMATARIA, GUWAHATI. REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS,
          SMTI. RUBY HAZARIKA.



Advocate for the Petitioners    : Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, Advocate
                                   Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate

  Advocate for the Respondents :    Ms. N. B. Kayastha, Advocate

                                BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                      Date of Hearing      : 27.05.2025

                      Date of Judgment     : 27.05.2025
                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. N. B. Kayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 13.07.2015 passed in Title Suit No.313/2005 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati {presently the learned Court of the Civil Judge, No.1 Kamrup (M) at Guwahati} (for short, 'the learned Trial Court') had decreed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act of 1963') in favour of the Page No.# 3/10

plaintiff.

3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the jurisdiction so exercised by the learned Trial Court was in accordance with law, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that one Debabala Chaliha (since deceased) had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 4 bighas 3 kathas 2 lechas vide the registered Sale Deed No.3989 dated 16.06.1961. The said land has been specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint. In the month of December, 1970, a partnership firm was formed in the name and style of M/s Chaliha Warehousing Company. Amongst the various partners, one of the partners was Late Debabala Chaliha. Late Debabala Chaliha during her lifetime leased out the Schedule A land to the said partnership firm with the permission to make construction like tea house, godown, staff quarters etc. and also to construct boundary walls over the said. In the year 1980, the partnership firm accordingly constructed a boundary wall surrounding the warehouse leaving vacant an area approximately 1 bigha 16 lechas. This 1 bigha 16 lechas of land which remained unbounded is the Schedule C land. A perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No.313/2005 though refers to various factual matters but taking into account that the instant proceedings is an outcome of Page No.# 4/10

a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963, the relevant facts would be that the plaintiff who is the owner of the Schedule A land by virtue of the land being bequeathed by Late Debabala Chaliha in its favour and was in possession over the land on 19.03.2005 was dispossessed by the defendants and more particularly the defendant No.4 from the Schedule-C land.

5. Under such circumstances, one of the Directors of the plaintiff Company filed an FIR on 20.03.2005 before the Officer- in-Charge of Dispur Police Station stating inter-alia that on 19.03.2005 at around 3:00 pm, the defendant No.4 along with 200 people entered into the vacant plot of land and ousted the labourers and security guards forcefully from the quarter situated on the plot. The said FIR was received on 20.03.2005. Subsequent thereto, another communication was written on 07.04.2005 to the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur Police Station giving further details as regards the incident dated 19.03.2005 and also the fact that the FIR was already filed on 20.03.2005.

6. It is very relevant to take note of that on 12.04.2005, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (M) had initiated a

proceedings being Case No.259M/2005, on the basis of the complaint so filed on 20.03.2005 and 07.04.2005, and accordingly, drew up a proceedings under Section 144 of the Page No.# 5/10

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereby restraining the defendants from entering into the disputed land and also from erecting any type of construction over the disputed land to prevent any further breach of peace as well as to maintain law and order in the area with immediate effect and until further orders.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 14.04.2005, the plaintiff was handed over the possession and on the very date at 3:00 pm the plaintiff was again dispossessed and it is under such circumstances, the suit was filed on 17.09.2005. It is also stated that the order so passed by the learned Executive Magistrate dated 12.04.2005 was put to challenge before the learned Court of the Sessions, Kamrup in Criminal Revision Petition No.43/2005 and the said proceedings was dismissed.

8. The materials on records show that pursuant to the filing of the suit which is registered and numbered as Title Suit No.313/2005, the defendants filed the written statement denying the contents of the plaint and also further stated that they have been in possession of the suit land much prior to 19.03.2005, and as such, the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 was not maintainable. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as five issues which being relevant is reproduced herein under:

Page No.# 6/10

1. Whether the suit is maintainable under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963?

2. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff has been dispossessed by force from the disputed land otherwise than in the due course of law without the consent of the plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint?

5. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, 13 witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendants two witnesses were examined. Both the parties exhibited certain documents. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence came to a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule C land as on 19.03.2005 and the plaintiff was dispossessed on the said date and further again on 14.04.2005, the plaintiff was dispossessed, and it is under such circumstances, the suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the previous possession of the land and property described in Schedule C of the plaint which forms a part of Schedule A land along with the staff quarter and godown and the defendants, their men, agents, labourers, etc. were perpetually restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of the Page No.# 7/10

Schedule C land by the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree was passed on 13.07.2015.

10. It is relevant to take note of that though the judgment and decree was passed on 13.07.2015, the instant proceedings was filed on 19.01.2017 with a delay of 518 days. The said delay was condoned by this Court on 30.04.2025 and vide another order of the same date, this Court fixed the instant proceedings for disposal today.

11. Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court had adjudicated the said proceedings as if the said proceedings were a normal suit for declaration along with consequential reliefs. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there are observations made in the said impugned judgment and order which touches on the title. The learned counsel submitted that a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is only for deciding as to whether the party who has filed the said proceedings was in possession within six months from the date of filing of the suit and was dispossessed without following the due process. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the observations so made on the question of title by the learned Trial Court is not in accordance with law and it is beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court under Section 6 Page No.# 8/10

of the Act of 1963.

12. Per contra, Ms. N. B. Kayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that as this Court is exercising the jurisdiction of a Revisional Court, the question which is required to be looked into is as to whether the learned Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction within the manner envisaged under the law. The findings of facts so arrived at by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence clearly show that on 19.03.2005 and subsequently on 14.04.2005, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the Schedule C land that too without due process. Under such circumstances, as the suit was filed on 17.09.2005, the learned Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to decree the said suit in the manner in which it has been done. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that this Court may not exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the present proceedings.

13. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the relevant submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and has also perused the materials on record including the evidence so adduced by both the parties.

14. From the evidence so adduced by the plaintiffs, it appears that on 19.03.2005 when the plaintiff Company who was in Page No.# 9/10

possession of the Schedule C land was dispossessed and thereupon again on 14.04.2005, the plaintiff was dispossessed. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence had come to that finding. Consequently, there is no perversity in the said findings.

15. This Court further takes note of that the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 are in the nature of summary proceedings and what is required to be adjudicated in such proceedings is as to whether a person concerned who is in possession of an immovable property have been dispossessed within the period of six months otherwise then in due course of law. Therefore, what is required in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is for the Court to ascertain as to whether the person concerned who is complaining of dispossession was (a) possession of the immovable property on the date of dispossession; (b) was dispossessed by the other party otherwise in due course of law; (c) whether the suit was filed within six months from the date of dispossession.

16. Taking into account that the scope and ambit of a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is limited to the above aspect, there cannot be also observations so made in such suit as regards title and any such observations so made cannot also be construed to be observations for affecting the title of any Page No.# 10/10

of the parties.

17. This Court has duly takes note of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the said judgment and decree. However, this Court finds it relevant to clarify that any observations as regards title so made would not impact any of the parties in future litigations or act as a res-judicata on the question of title.

18. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant proceedings for which the instant proceedings stands dismissed.

19. Before parting with the record, this Court for the sake of further clarity observes that the decree so passed shall not preclude the petitioners herein to file appropriate suit proceedings for recovery of the suit land, upon due execution of the decree passed in the present proceedings, based on title.

20. The Registry shall forthwith return the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant