JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. This revisional application is directed against Order No. 30 dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 49 of 2015 by which application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession in respect of a suit premises is rejected. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration that it has every right or authority to run the business over the property in suit and permanent injunction restraining the defendants/opposite parties from disturbing the peaceful possession and/or from running the business and/or causing any disturbance or hindrance hampering such business over the suit property and also from demolishing the structures standing there on. 3. The aforesaid suit appears to have been filed in or about 20th April, 2013. The plaint case proceeds that the State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., opposite party No. 1 herein published a notice inviting offer in sealed cover from the financially sound and experienced persons for setting up public entertainment cum tourist projects on the water areas of the different forms of the Corporation located in Kolkata and other important places in West Bengal. 4. The plaintiff was earlier known as M/s Bansilal Farms Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently changed its name as M/s Bansilal Leisure Parks Pvt. Ltd. The factum of the change of name of the plaintiff was duly communicated to the authorities concerned. The plaintiff was adjudged as highest bidder and an agreement was entered into on 12th March, 1991 wherein the right for use and occupation for surface water project was given. It was further agreed that the plaintiff company shall not in any way use the appertaining land of the project for general activities except with the prior approval of the opposite party No. 1 for setting up temporary structure for the use of its office, booking counter, guard room, gates, boundary walls, fencing, electrification etc. The land area was also allowed to be used for the purpose of beautification for planting tress without hampering pisciculture in any way. The land area was also allowed to be used for the purpose of beautification for planting tress without hampering pisciculture in any way. It was clearly averred therein that the right to use the surface water area for execution of the project is purely on the basis of a license which shall not be construed to have created any right or interest such as tenant or a lessee or any other rights whatsoever of the opposite party No. 1. 5. Subsequently, another agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the opposite party No. 1 on 23rd September, 1998 allowing the plaintiff to set up and run the tourist cum boating complex upon renewing the agreement under which the plaintiff was allowed to use appertaining land of the project for general activities of their project and shall be entitled to use the surface water area and appurtenant land for tourist cum boating complex for which if any permission is required the same would be accorded by the opposite party No. 1. It was further agreed that the said agreement can be terminated before the expiry of the period upon six months prior notice in writing by either of the parties on valid ground. 6. A further agreement was entered into on 15th December, 2010 renewing the permission for further period of 30 years, subject to the right of further renewal. It is alleged that a news was published in a daily newspaper dated 16th April, 2012 indicating that the opposite party no. 2 is trying to establish a tourist project over the Nalban and it was further learnt from the reliable source that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with the opposite party No. 1 are contemplating to take immediate possession of the suit premises by dispossessing the plaintiff. In Paragraph 16 of the plaint it is stated that because of the emerging situation having arisen on publication of the news and the action of the opposite parties the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be served before the institution of the suit and a leave is sought to present the plaint without serving such notice. 7. 7. In the mean time, an order was passed by the Managing Director of the opposite party No. 1 invoking Clause 3 of the agreement dated 23.09.1998 intimating the petitioner that the license agreement stands ceased automatically with effect from the handing over of the possession by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Govt. of West Bengal on 22nd April, 2013 and all the belongings of the petitioner must be removed within a period of seven days. The petitioner challenged the said notice by filing a Writ Petition being WP 12681(W) of 2013 which came up for disposal on 30th April, 2013 before the Hon'ble Single Bench. While disposing the Writ Petition it was observed that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit before the Court after obtaining a leave without under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and upon consideration, the Civil Court in seisin of the said suit, issued the notice which is made returnable ten days hence. 8. This Court, however, observed that since the Civil Judge having declined to pass an interim order and the notice contemplating recourse to take possession cannot be treated as a separate cause of action the Civil Court is competent to grant complete relief. The Writ Petition was not entertained and was, thus, dismissed. The said order was carried to Appellate Court and came up before the Division Bench on 7th May, 2013. The Division Bench, however, did not interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge passed but directed the Civil Court to hear out the injunction application and to dispose of the same positively by 17th May, 2013. 9. By an order No. 8 dated 17th May, 2014, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Barasat disposed of the injunction application restraining the defendants not to disturb the plaintiffs occupation and lawful action over the suit properties till the disposal of the suit. It was categorically observed that since the plaintiff company is still running the boating complex even if the license is terminated, such possession cannot be taken without due process of law. 10. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court, who by judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2014 set aside the same as a consequences whereof the appeal was allowed. 10. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court, who by judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2014 set aside the same as a consequences whereof the appeal was allowed. The matter was immediately mentioned before this Court on 24th April, 2014 for a leave to move the revisional application challenging the order of the Appellate Court without the certified copy. The Court directed the application to be filed and be listed on 25th April, 2014. 11. Pursuant to the leave, a revisional application being C.O. 1375 of 2014 was filed and was listed on 25th April, 2014. At the time of moving the same, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 24th April, 2014 at 2 PM the State Authorities tried to take possession by encircling the property with the help of the Police personnel and preventing the petitioner from entering into premises though the keys of the gates are still lying with the petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the possession of the property had been taken in presence of the petitioner. In view of such rival stand, this Court restrained the opposite parties from taking any further steps in respect of the suit property till 30th April, 2014. The said revisional application was ultimately taken up on 17.09.2015 by Shivakant Prasad J. and the order of the Court of Appeal below was set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court was restored. 12. It was categorically observed therein that even if the license is terminated, it does not absolve the authorities from taking steps for recovery of possession recognised under the law. The entire attempt to take possession was found to be in hush manner by barricading the entrance preventing the access to the suit premise. The resultant effect of the said order passed in an earlier revisional application is that the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Barasat suit was restored by which the opposite parties were restrained from disturbing the petitioners occupation and lawful action over the suit property. The resultant effect of the said order passed in an earlier revisional application is that the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Barasat suit was restored by which the opposite parties were restrained from disturbing the petitioners occupation and lawful action over the suit property. The order passed by this Court in an earlier revisional application was challenged by the State of West Bengal before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave to Appeal which was ultimately dismissed by granting liberty to the opposite parties to file written statement before the Trial Court and keeping all the pleas available to them, to remain open and to be decided in accordance with law. 13. Subsequently, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed seeking restoration of possession as the same had been taken illegally without following the due process of law. The Trial Court rejected the said application by the impugned order, which is challenged in this revisional application. 14. It is apposite to record at the first instance that the Trial Court have virtually gone into the merit of the case and was more swayed by the fact that without serving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit is incompetent. It is held that the plea of non-service of notice was never considered at any stage of the hearing in spite of specific objection, which disentitles the petitioner to claim possession. 15. The Trial Court, was further swayed by the fact that there is no material on record that the petitioner was dispossessed after 25th April, 2014 when the fact remains that the suit property was encircled on 24th April, 2014. It further appears from the observations recorded by the Trial Court that once Clause 3 of the agreement postulates that the right of the plaintiff as licensee shall immediately stand terminated automatically without any reference in the event the right of the opposite party No. 1 over the water area is withdrawn by the Govt. of West Bengal for any reason whatsoever, the petitioner is not entitled to prefer any claim for compensation for such termination of the agreement. 16. The grounds on which such application filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession is dismissed are summarized in the said order as under:- "1. of West Bengal for any reason whatsoever, the petitioner is not entitled to prefer any claim for compensation for such termination of the agreement. 16. The grounds on which such application filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession is dismissed are summarized in the said order as under:- "1. the proviso u/Sub-Rule (2) has not been considered at any stage up to this hearing in spite of specific objection raised in the written statement by the contesting defendants; 2. that the plaintiff/petitioner has misrepresented before the Court that the 1st Agreement Dated 12.03.1991 was with the consent of the state excluding the meaning of the State Fisheries Development Corporation or Fisheries Department. 3. That the plaintiff petitioner has estopped itself by the said Agreements to cease its right over the suit property without any reference and also to bind itself with such cease in case of withdrawn of rights of the Corporation, the first part of the Agreement, for any reason whatsoever and also agreed that the plaintiff/company shall not be entitled to prefer any claim for compensation for such termination of the Agreement and 4. that the defendant has taken the alleged possession when Ld. 15th A.D.J., Barasat Court in Misc. Appeal, vacated the injunction Order passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 2nd Court Barasat in connection with this case on 23.04.2014 and 5. that there is no material in the record that the plaintiff was dispossessed after 25th April, 2014 when his Lordship was pleased to direct the defendants from taking further steps in the matter and 6. that rather it is the specific case of Paragraph No. 9 of the application that at about 11.00 o'clock on 24.04.2014 the defendants forcibly encircled the property and did not allow the petitioner in the suit property." 17. Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner challenges the impugned order firstly on the ground that once the injunction application is decided taking all the objections of the opposite parties in consideration, it is not open to the Trial Court to reopen such issues at subsequent interlocutory stage. In other words, he submits that the point, which was agitated in an injunction application having decided finally the Trial Court cannot take a contrary view to it as it cannot sit over the said judgment as an Appellate Court. 18. In other words, he submits that the point, which was agitated in an injunction application having decided finally the Trial Court cannot take a contrary view to it as it cannot sit over the said judgment as an Appellate Court. 18. It is further submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order is of final in nature in the sense that the suit is virtually decided which is impermissible in law. Above all what appears to have swayed the mind of a learned Judge in the Court below is that once the agreement provides no protection to the licensee upon termination of an agreement by the State with the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner cannot defend any right accruing under the agreement dated 12.03.1991 or under the subsequent renewed agreements. 19. The aforesaid objection is absolutely contrary to the decision of this Court in an earlier revisional application wherein this Court even after taking into account Clause 3 of the said agreement proceeded to observe that a person found in settled possession cannot be dispossessed automatically upon issuance of the notice of termination and the law mandates that such person cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. 20. This Court further noticed the subsequent facts by which the State took help of the Police in getting the premises barricaded to prevent the petitioner on carrying on the business. While disposing of the earlier revisional application the Court permitted the petitioner to file an application under Section 151 of the Code and the issue relating to recovery of possession can be taken up as the petitioner cannot file a separate suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It would be profitable to quote the relevant observations made in C.O. 1375 of 2014, which runs thus:- "This Court is of the considered view that issue of recovery of possession can be taken up in the facts of the case by the plaintiff/petitioner on an application, if submitted before the learned Trial Court under the provision of Section 151 of CPC as in the instant case the plaintiff cannot file a separate suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act." 21. It is, thus, apparent from the aforesaid observation that the Court was convinced that the possession was not taken as on the date of passing of the said order i.e. 17.09.2015 and therefore right to apply under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not available. The said provision provides that if a person is dispossessed otherwise than due process of law, the person so dispossessed can file a suit within six months from the date of such dispossession for recovery of possession and it would not be wrong to say that he is not required to prove title. 22. It is no longer res integra that law respects possession even if there is no title to support to it. No person is allowed to take the law in his own hand and dispossess the person from settled possession without following due process of law. From the aforesaid observations it is seen that the plea whether any barricade has been constructed by the opposite parties denying the access to the petitioner in respect of the suit premises was the center point of debate as the Court was convinced by that time that there was no recovery of possession by the opposite parties. The said observation would be meaningless if any other interpretation is sought to be made. 23. In view of the categorical finding that the right under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not available to the petitioner the State challenged the said order before the Supreme Court but could not emerge successful therefrom. The Apex Court categorically recorded that there is no justification whatsoever for interfering with the impugned order which necessarily implies that whatever has been observed in the Court in an earlier revisional application stands binding on the parties. 24. The matter thereafter has taken turn when for the first time it was disclosed by the opposite parties that the possession was taken on 24th April, 2014 by breaking opening the padlocks put on the eleven gates and the gate No. 1 is locked, sealed and the keys have been handed over to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kolkata Zone. Till 17th September, 2015 when the matter appeared before this Court it was not disclosed to the Court that the possession in fact has been taken. Till 17th September, 2015 when the matter appeared before this Court it was not disclosed to the Court that the possession in fact has been taken. Even if it is hypothetically taken as true that the possession was recovered on 24th May, 2015, it would run counter to the observation of this Court where the right under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not held to be available to the petitioner. Before this Court the opposite parties are banking upon the statement that the possession was in fact taken on 24th April, 2015 by following the process of law. 25. It does not appear from the objection filed before the Trial Court to an application under Section 151 of the Code filed by the petitioner that the opposite parties had ever averred that such possession was taken on 24th April, 2015. The aforesaid facts do not appear to have been taken before the Trial Court but for the first time the same has been taken. 26. This Court feels that the opportunity should be given to the opposite parties to place all such facts on records by way of supplementary affidavits. Taking out some papers for the first time before the Revisional Court without having support of the pleading and more particularly when the other side have no opportunity to deal with the same, it would not be prudent in the interest of justice to adopt such recourse. It is all along the stand of the petitioner that the keys of the padlock are in their possession and the access has been denied by putting a barricade in front of the gates. 27. All the above factual aspects have not been considered by the Trial Court, who appears to have proceeded in the manner, which this Court finds, runs counter to the observation of this Court in an earlier revisional application. There is a total lack of application of mind. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 28. The same is hereby set aside. 29. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code in the light of the observations recorded herein above. 30. There is a total lack of application of mind. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 28. The same is hereby set aside. 29. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code in the light of the observations recorded herein above. 30. The opposite parties are permitted to file supplementary affidavit within two weeks from date before the Trial Court and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file rejoinder within a reasonable time as may be directed by the Trial Court. 31. The Trial Court shall dispose of the said application within two weeks from the reopening of the Court following the Puja Vacation in accordance with law. 32. The revisional application is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.