IDRIS RAHAMAN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present proceeding arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff in the Court of the Learned Judge in charge Ninth Bench, City Civil court at Calcutta, claiming recovery of possession of a ground floor room situated at premises no. 7b, Rani Rashmoni Road, Kolkata-700 013 (referred to hereinafter as the subject property ). The appellant was the main defendant in that suit. The main allegation of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was a tenant of the subject property under one Shyam Das Sen, and on 23rd November 1986 at about 11-30 a. m. the appellant who was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit, had illegally trespassed into the said room and continued to remain in possession thereof. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial court. The defendant no. 1 preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 15th october 2004. The appellant has applied for review of the judgment and decree passed by the Division bench by initiating the present proceeding.

(2.) THE ground on which review of this judgment and decree is prayed for is discovery of new evidence. The appellant has brought to our notice a photocopy of a document containing certain declarations which appear to have had been made by Shyam Das Sen and one Ram Janam Singh. This has been made annexure "p" to the petition. In this document, there is reference to an agreement between said Shyam Das Sen and Ram Janam Singh dated 15th February, 1984 in respect of a ground floor room at premises no. 7b, Rani Rashmoni Road, calcutta-13. From the text of this document, it appears that the parties therein by executing the said document gave effect to that agreement. The declarations contained therein are to the effect that Shyam Das Sen was putting Ram Janam singh in possession of one room in the ground floor of the said premises, which was being acknowledged by the latter. No date of execution has been specified in this document, but the same is claimed to have been executed on non-judicial stamp paper of rupees five. It appears from the endorsement on the reverse of the stamp paper that the same was purchased on 1st December 1984 in the name of shyam Das Sen.

(3.) IN the suit, the defence of the appellant/defendant no. 1 was that he was inducted into the subject property with consent of the landlord by one Ram janam Singh, who was the tenant in respect of the subject property. Thus, the case of the appellant was that his possession of the subject property was legitimate. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the document in question establishes his client's case that Ram janam Singh was in possession of the subject property. He submitted that his client did not have any knowledge of this document at the stage of trial, and he could not obtain it even after exercise of due diligence at that stage, or even at the stage when the appeal was being heard. His client claims to have laid his hands on it providentially, as the same was lying in an abandoned package left over by Ram Janam Singh in his erstwhile tenancy.