Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 484 (JHR)

IBRAHIM MIAN v. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

2001-07-19

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
Judgment : GURUSHARAN SHARMA,J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS filed Title Suit No. 121 of 1994 for recovery of possession of the suit land, described in Schedule b. to the plaint, it was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, Plot No. 2950 situated in village Kunji stood recorded as Gairabad Malik land Plaintiffs claimed that the suit land was converted into culturable land by them and they were enjoying possession thereon. ( 3 ) ON 6. 6. 1994, M/s. Bharat Coking coal Limited dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land, which was part of plot No. 2950. Hence, they filed the present suit on 23. 11 1994. i. e. within six months of their dispossession as required under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. ( 4 ) IN course of hearing of the suit, plaintiff No. 2 examined himself as P. W. 3 and specifically stated in paragraph 4 of his deposition that from 6. 6. 1992, M/s. Bharat Coking coal Limited was excavating earth from the suit land forcibly. Plaintiff No. 2 also examined himself as P. W. 2, but he did not disclose any date of either interference with his possession over the suit land by M/s. Bharat coking Coal Limited or his dispossession therefrom. Plaintiffs, therefore, failed to prove their case and claim that actually they were dispossessed from the suit land on 6. 6. 1994 ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that inadvertently the Trial Court while recording deposition of plaintiff No. 2 recorded 6. 6. 1992 in place of 6. 6. 1994 as the date of plaintiffs dispossession from the suit land by m/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, there is no merit in the submission, as no step was taken by the plaintiffs either, immediately when they came to know about such wrong recording of evidence or even till hearing of the suit before the same court, which could have appreciated their contention and if there was some substance in it, could have also corrected the same. The petitioners have also not produced even the certificate of the conducting counsel on their behalf in the Trial Court in whose presence evidence was recorded or who had brought the alleged mistake to the knowledge of the Court concerned. The petitioners have also not produced even the certificate of the conducting counsel on their behalf in the Trial Court in whose presence evidence was recorded or who had brought the alleged mistake to the knowledge of the Court concerned. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed under Section 6 of the said Act, solely on the ground that it was barred by time. ( 8 ) THERE is no merit in this civil revision application. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down to the Court below immediately. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .