BHOLANATH PAL Vs. GOBINDO BAG & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite parties. Let the affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

(2.) The present revisional application arises from an order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100055 of 2014 reversing the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Chinsura in Title Suit No. 9586 of 2014.

(3.) The facts emanates from the revisional application are that the plaintiffs / opposite parties filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants / petitioners from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property and not to take away the agricultural produce cultivated by them. It is averred in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party was a recorded bargadar under the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and upon his death the plaintiffs / opposite parties are cultivating the said land. It is, further alleged that the petitioner wanted to sale, transfer and convey the said property to a third party and disturb the possession of the plaintiffs at the suit plot. An application under Section 144 of the CrPC was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate who called for a report from the concerned police officer and such report would reveal that the plaintiff / opposite parties are cultivating the said land.