JUDGMENT: 1. THIS revisional application is directed against the order No. 18 dated 4. 10. 2007 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambagh in T. S. No. 44 of 2007 granting defendants / respondents liberty to perform Saradiya Durga Puja each year in the suit Kha schedule property till disposal of the suit subject to the condition that the defendants would restore the previous condition of the suit property, i. e., "kha" schedule property soon after the completion of such Durga Puja and thus disposing of the defendants" application under Section 151 C. P. C. 2. IT has been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are the owners of the suit property and the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit Kha schedule property by way of arrangement amongst cosharers. The defendants were given permission to perform such Durga Puja in the Kha schedule property for 7 years with a condition to restore the previous character of the said property. But the defendants are making unauthorized interference in erecting certain buildings by the plaintiffs over Kha schedule property as per the sanctioned plan and hence the suit was filed. In the suit a petition for temporary injunction was filed. Defendants claimed the suit property by way of adverse possession alternatively by way of irrevocable licence. The defendants filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C. for permission to carry out Durga Puja in the Kha schedule property in the year 2007 but the learned Trial Court by the impugned order granted permission to the defendants to perform Durga Puja every year. Learned lawyer for the plaintiffs further contends that the defendants have been performing Durga Puja in the Kha schedule property with permission of the plaintiffs for the last 7 years and they have been making over possession of the same to the plaintiffs after four days and the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property. Their possession of the suit property if any was permissive which cannot clothe the defendants with title to suit property and the defendants cannot raise any objection to enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs who are true owners according to their sweet-will. Their possession of the suit property if any was permissive which cannot clothe the defendants with title to suit property and the defendants cannot raise any objection to enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs who are true owners according to their sweet-will. In view of the prayer of the defendants under Section 151 C. P. C they cannot be permitted to use the suit property for Durga Puja every for the year 2007 and Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was definitely wrong in granting the permission for performing the Durga Puja every year though the defendants prayed for such permission for the year 2007. The impugned order is obviously in excess of the prayer of the defendants. The plaintiffs being rightful owners cannot be saddled with the liability of permitting the defendants to perform Durga Puja every year. The instant order is liable to be vacated. 3. IT has been contended by the learned lawyer for the respondents that the respondents have been possessing the suit Kha schedule property. They have been performing the Durga Puja every year and they have made some construction and the plaintiffs cannot get any relief without challenging the order of injunction by way of appeal. Against the impugned order of status quo inclusive the order granting the defendants permission to perform Durga Puja subject to certain condition is an appealable order and the present revision though instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed. 4. IT has been further contended by the learned lawyer for the defendants that the defendants have been possessing the suit property for a considerable period and their so-called licence is irrevocable and the plaintiffs cannot interfere with the possession of the defendants in the suit Kha schedule property. The defendants have every right to use the suit property for the purpose of performing Durga Puja. The instant petition of the plaintiffs for modification of the order passed under Section 151 C. P. C is liable to be dismissed. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Kha schedule property. The defendants have claimed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession or alternatively as irrevocable licensees. The plaintiffs have claimed the suit property as owners. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Kha schedule property. The defendants have claimed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession or alternatively as irrevocable licensees. The plaintiffs have claimed the suit property as owners. The plaintiffs have claimed further in the plaint that at the request of members of the Pach Number Pally Durga Puja Committee the plaintiffs have been permitting the members of the said committee to perform Durga Puja for 15 days and the members of the said Puja Committee were accordingly performing Durga Puja and after Dashami they removed the pandle and vacated the Kha schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and the members of the Puja Committee also had given undertaking. 5. THE defendants have not challenged the said undertaking. To the contrary in the written statement they have stated that by way of coercion the said undertaking has been procured by the plaintiffs. A copy of such undertaking has been filed in Court which discloses that on 22. 7. 2007 5 " Er Pally Durga Puja Committee executed declaration admitting the plaintiffs to be the owners of the property and they undertook to vacate the suit premises within three days from the date of Vijoya Dashami in the year 1413 B. S after durga Puja is over. This agreement was signed by the present respondents No. 1 to 5. There is nothing to show that the said document was procured by exercising coercion. To the contrary, the said document was not only executed by a single O. P but all the O. P. s". This fact also rebels against the contention that the said document was procured by way of coercion. There is nothing to show that the said document was procured by exercising coercion. To the contrary, the said document was not only executed by a single O. P but all the O. P. s". This fact also rebels against the contention that the said document was procured by way of coercion. The said document contains the admission that the plaintiffs are the owners and the defendants have been enjoying the suit premises with the permission of the plaintiffs and they agreed to perform Durga Puja in the year 1413 B. S with leave and licence of the plaintiffs with condition to vacate the premises after removal of pandle and other articles within three days from the day of Bijoya Dashami in the year 1413 B. S. So, at present it can be safely said that the defendants are the licensees in respect to the suit premises and their licence was to the extent of performing of Durga Puja and in 2006 they obtained permission and vacated the suit premises after removal of pandle and other articles. For the year 2007 corresponding to Bengali 1414 B. S the defendants prayed for permission to perform Durga Puja after constructing temporary pandle on the Kha schedule property. Learned Judge by the impugned order in stead of permitting the defendants to perform Durga Puja for the year 1414 B. S after construction of temporary pandle gave permission to the defendants to perform Durga Puja every year in Kha schedule property subject to the conditions that they would restore the previous condition of the suit property after completion of Saradiya Durja Puja. The possession of the suit kha schedule properties by the defendants is seasonal during Durga Puja with permission of the plaintiffs and after performing Durga Puja the defendants use to remove the pandle. The said possession which is restricted to performance of Durga Puja during Autumn cannot be said to be a settled possession. The possession was casual and as soon as the Durga Puja was over the defendants were under obligation to restore the suit property to its earlier position in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being the rightful owners of the suit Kha schedule property have every right to enjoy the suit property and the defendants cannot interfere with such right setting up a claim of adverse possession or possession as irrevocable licensee. 6. The plaintiffs being the rightful owners of the suit Kha schedule property have every right to enjoy the suit property and the defendants cannot interfere with such right setting up a claim of adverse possession or possession as irrevocable licensee. 6. IN this regard reference may be made to the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court at page 702 where it has been held that it is true that no one including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as a resistance to an intrusion upon possession which has never been lost. The persons in possession by a stray act of trespass, a possession which has not matured into settled possession, constitute an unlawful assembly, giving right to the true owner, though not in actual possession at the time to remove the obstruction even by using necessary force. In this case it has already observed that the defendants have been possessing the suit Kha schedule property only during Durga Puja. It is being used only for the purpose of holding Durga Puja with condition to remove the pandles and restore the position of the property to the plaintiffs after Durga Puja. Such seasonal or stray or casual act on the part of the defendants as reflected in "angikar Patra" makes out a case of only permissive possession and not a settled possession of the defendants. Whenever Durga Puja is over the periodical licence comes to an end and defendants are under obligation to restore the possession of the occupied portion of the Kha schedule property by removing pandle etc. Whenever Durga Puja is over the periodical licence comes to an end and defendants are under obligation to restore the possession of the occupied portion of the Kha schedule property by removing pandle etc. In the year 2006, the defendants did it and defendants sought for permission for the year 2007. That year is also over. The court in disposing of the application under Section 151 7. C. P. C for permission to perform Durga Puja in the year 2007 for 1414 B. S cannot permit the defendants to perform Durga Puja every year subject to certain conditions and such permission is beyond the scope of the petition under Section 151 C. P. C and such order cannot stand. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed under Section 151 C. P. C permitting the defendants to perform Durga Puja every year specially in view of the permission petition for performing Durga Puja for the year 1414 B. S is not sustainable. 8. ACCORDINGLY the instant revision stands allowed. The order passed by the Learned civil Judge (Junior Division) on 4. 10. 2007 in T. S. 44 of 2007 disposing of the defendants" application under Section 151 C. P. C and thus permitting the defendants to perform saradiya Durga Puja on each year in respect of the Kha schedule properties till disposal of the suit subject to the condition that, the defendants should restore the previous condition of the suit property, i. e., "kha" schedule property, soon after the completion of such Saradiya Durga Puja, is here by set aside. I make no order as to costs.