BARINI KUMAR DAS Vs. MANINDRA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a revisional application under section 115 of the CPC. The facts, in short. are as follows :-

(2.) That on 8.10.66 a Misc. Case under section 26 F of the B.T. Act was filed for pre-emption but it was dismissed. In Appeal it was allowed and the present Opposite party entered into possession of the disputed land. The present petitioner-party then filed a Writ petition challenging the order passed in Misc. Appeal before the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court. But that Writ petition was also dismissed. Against that, FMAT No. 495/68 was filed and it was allowed by the Division Bench. Thereafter in C.R. No. 3624 Justice A.K. Sengupta made absolute the Judgment passed by the learned lower Court and set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Court. The present petitioner-party filed and application under section 144 of the CPC for restitution and for damages since 1967. On the other hand, the present Opposite party filed an application before Justice A.K. Sengupta for recalling his order but that application was also dismissed. In the Misc. Case under section 144 of the CPC possession of the present petitioner-party was restored and an amount of compensation of Rs. 16,920/- was allowed by the learned Munsif in place of the claim for Rs. 25,280/-. An Appeal was preferred by the Opposite party before the learned Assistant District Judge who set aside the order of the learned Munsif mainly on the ground that the learned Munsif assessed the compensation not according to law.

(3.) On being aggrieved the present revisional application has been filed, later alia, on the grounds, that the learned Asstt. District Judge failed to appreciate the points of the law and facts involved.