MINATI GHOSH Vs. LAKSHMI NARAYAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 22-7-2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2000. The aforesaid Misc. Case arises out of an application filed by the opposite parties herein under Order 21, Rule 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court by the aforesaid impugned order held that the said Misc. Case is maintainable in law by rejecting the contention of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract being T.S. 185 of 1991 against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7. At the appellate stage a compromise decree was passed and it is the case of the petitioner that while she made an application in the suit for police help for taking possession of the suit property, the sons of the opposite party No. 3 who was the original defendant No. 1 and who alone entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the petitioner, resisted the execution of the decree. The misc. case that arose out of the application filed by the sons of the opposite party No. 3 was dismissed. Such dismissal was further affirmed by this Court. The petitioner thereafter took over possession of the suit properly pursuant to the orders made by the trial Court in the said suit and ultimately by an order dated 15-9-2000 it was recorded in the suit that the same was disposed of upon full satisfaction of the decree.

(3.) After the aforesaid order was made the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed an application under Order 21, Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the self same Court in connection with the above suit. On the basis of the said application the instant Misc. Case No. 44 of 2000 has been registered by the trial Court. In substance the case of the said opposite parties is that the original defendant No. 1 had no title to the suit property to convey in favour of the petitioner and the sons of the opposite party No. 3 i.e. the sons of the defendant No. 1 in the suit are the caretakers of the suit property. The aforesaid decree in the said suit and delivery of possession were thus made in collusion between the petitioner and the said opposite parties.