JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. B. Deka, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. By this revision under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in T.S. No. 126/2007, which was a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 3. The case as projected in the suit is that the previous suit, numbered as TS No. 126/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of land measuring 1K-6L, covered by Dag No. 213, PP No. 33 of Village No.1, Mathgharia, Mouza- Beltola in the district of Kamrup (M), as morefully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The said land was originally purchased by his father by Sale Deed No. 5778 dated 14.05.1975 by one Kartik Rai, the occupancy tenant under original owner, namely, Panna Devi Agarwalla, whose whereabouts is not known. The said land was left to him by his father, who had died in the year 1977. The said land formed a part of total land measuring 1B-2K-16L of same Dag and Patta, which was declared in his favour by order dated 29.10.2001 in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which was filed after the Assam State Housing Board tried to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land on 01.04.1990. Thereafter, the said plot was divided into three portions and the suit land is one of these three plots. It was projected that on 24.10.2006, the respondents had made attempt to construct a brick wall, but because of the help from police the petitioner could not be dispossessed, but on 12.12.2006, the respondents had trespassed into the suit land by constructing 3 feet high brick wall in the eastern boundary of the suit land despite protest by the petitioners and on 19th and 20th February, 2007 the respondent had also installed a gate in the middle of the wall without any legal right or authority. 4. The respondents had contested the suit by filing their joint written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint. 4. The respondents had contested the suit by filing their joint written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that that the suit was barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, claiming that the predecessor of the respondents had purchased the said plot of land from the Assam State Housing Board and, as such, the Assam State Housing Board was a necessary party and that the respondents had been enjoying physical possession of the land measuring 1K-5L (not 1K-6L) since the year 1992 and that the boundary wall was constructed 12 years back. It was projected that the Assam State Housing Board had purchased about 53 bigha land and the said land was divided into small plots for various categories and one of such plot was handed over to Amar Hazarika, the predecessor of the respondents (who died on 11.05.2006) as HIG No. 9 category plot by accepting first installment paid on 17.08.1992 and Sale Deed No. 14720 dated 11.08.2005 was registered on payment of the sale consideration of Rs.1,02,768/- in installments. It was also claimed that when the predecessor of the respondents had engaged one contractor, namely, Biren Kumar Das to develop the land, the petitioner had instituted Case No. 609M/2005 which was dropped by order dated 31.08.2006, directing the parties to approach civil court. Hence, it was prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether there was any cause of action for filing this suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 4. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land on 12.12.06? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 6. In support of his claim, the petitioner had examined two witnesses, viz., himself, i.e. Ganesh Chandra Nath (PW-1) and Sri Paresh Patgiri (PW-2) and had exhibited the judgment and order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The respondents had examined the respondent No.2 i.e. Smt. Anjali Hazarika (DW-1), who had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Copy of agreement for sale of land on installment basis dated 17.08.1992 (Ext. Ka), (ii) Sale of Deed No.9803 dated 11.08.2005 (Ext. Ka), (ii) Sale of Deed No.9803 dated 11.08.2005 (Ext. B), (iii) Mutation certificate issued by the Sr. A.S.O., Guwahati dated 09.09.2005 vide No. SOGR-29/005/4390 (Ext. C), (iv) Allotment Letter issued by the Commissioner (Ext. D), (v) Copy of order in Case No.609m/05 dated 22.12.2005 (Ext. E), (vi) Copy of order in case No.609m/05/us/145/146 Cr.P.C. (Ext. F), (vii) Patta issued in the name of Housing Board and Late Amar Hazarika (Ext. G), (viii) Copy of the letter dated 27.12.2005 to the O/C Noonmati P.S. by the Commissioner A.H. Board (Ext.H), (ix) Certificate of Mazimdar (Ext. I) and (x) No objection certificate (Ext.J). Other witnesses examined by the respondents are, Sri Biren Kumar Das (DW-2), Sri Homeswar Mahanta (DW-3) who exhibited various signatures contained in Ext.B, and Sri Dinesh Chandra Patgiri (DW-4). 7. The learned trial Court, upon examining the evidence on record, arrived at a finding that the Assam State Housing Board had executed a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the suit land to the predecessor of the respondents and that there is nothing substantive on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. Referring to paragraph-5 of the order dated 29.10.2001 (Ext.1), the learned trial Court had observed that the O/c. Noonmati P.S. was directed to put the petitioner in possession, and, as such, it was concluded that the same would mean that the petitioner was not in possession as there is no evidence to show that the police had executed the order and consequently, it was also held that there was no dispossession. In respect of issue No.3, it was held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. In respect of issues No.1 and 2, it was held that the suit was maintainable and that there was cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 8. In respect of issue No.3, it was held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. In respect of issues No.1 and 2, it was held that the suit was maintainable and that there was cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 8. Challenging the decision by the learned trial Court, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the possession was declared in favour of the petitioner and, as such, there was no question of handing over possession of the suit land to the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the learned trial Court had erred on facts and in law to rely on one part of paragraph 5 of the dated 29.10.2001 (Ext.1), to hold that the suit land was not in possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that in light of the declaration by the learned Executive Magistrate that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land, it was the burden of the respondent to prove their entry into the suit land was not by dispossessing the petitioner. By referring to the finding recorded in para-27 of the impugned judgment, it is submitted that the learned trial Court had recorded that the claim of the petitioner was that he was in possession of the suit land till 12.12.2006 and, as such, the finding that the petitioner has not been able to prove his possession over the suit land is perverse. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that after the order dated 29.10.2001, the Assam State Housing Board was in possession of the suit land, as such, there is no flaw in the evidence of the petitioner that the respondents had illegally dispossessed the petitioner from the suit land. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court was not conversant with the law relating to claim for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 based on illegal dispossession within a period of 6 (six) months and in this connection, it is submitted that as the petitioner was dispossessed by the petitioners, there was no need to implead anyone other than the persons who had dispossessed him. It is submitted that it is a well settled position of law that if a person is in actual physical possession of the land, he cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. By referring to the evidence of DW-1 and DW-3, it is submitted that their evidence had supported the case of the petitioner that when they were doing earth-filling, there was protest from the petitioner. It is submitted that the date of actual dispossession would be the cause of action for the petitioner to file the suit. It is also submitted that there is no challenge that the suit land was not the land owned by the petitioner. Hence, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner has prayed for reversing the order of dismissal of the suit and for granting all reliefs as prayed for in the plaint. In support of his submissions, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi Vs. Rama Krishna Narain and Ors., AIR 1953 SC 521 . 9. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that on a perusal of the cause title of the order dated 29.10.2001, passed in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Opp. Party No.1 therein was one Sri Pradip Hazarika and the Opp. Party No.2 therein was Assam State Housing Board, hence, it is submitted that as the respondent herein was not a party to the said case, the said order would not bind the respondents in any manner. It was also submitted that the suit land was handed over to Amar Hazarika, the predecessor of the respondents (who died on 11.05.2006) as HIG No. 9 category plot by accepting first installment paid on 17.08.1992 and Sale Deed No. 14720 dated 11.08.2005 was registered on payment of the sale consideration of Rs.1,02,768/- in installments. Hence, the respondents had come into possession of the suit land much prior to the passing of the order dated 29.10.2001 in Case No. 180M/1990. By referring to the cross- examination of PW-1, evidence of DW-2 and order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (M), in Case No. 609M/2005 (Ext.F), it is submitted that when DW-2 was filling up earth to develop the suit land, the petitioner had filed proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., against (1) Biren Kr. By referring to the cross- examination of PW-1, evidence of DW-2 and order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (M), in Case No. 609M/2005 (Ext.F), it is submitted that when DW-2 was filling up earth to develop the suit land, the petitioner had filed proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., against (1) Biren Kr. Das, (2) Smt. Anjali Hazarika and (3) Arnab Hazarika, which was dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to approach a civil Court. It is submitted that, however, in the suit, the existence of the said case was withheld because any reference to the said order dated 31.08.2006 in Case No. 609M/2005 (Ext.F) would prove that the suit was barred by limitation. It is also submitted that the respondents could not have developed the suit land. Hence, the petitioner had miserably failed to prove his possession prior to 6 (six) months from the date of institution of the suit. It is also submitted that from the schedule given in the plaint, it is not discernable that the suit land falls in which part of the land described in Schedule of order dated 29.10.2001 (Ext.1), whereas order dated 22.12.2005 in Case No. 609M/2005 (Ext.E) disclosed that the disputed land was measuring 1K-6L, by which both parties were restrained from entering into the suit land, as such, the petitioner had not been able to prove his possession in respect of the suit land as on 12.12.2006. Hence, by relying on the case of Surinder Pal Kaur & Anr. Vs. Satpal & Anr., (2015) 13 SCC 25 and the case of Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438 , it is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held that the reasoning recorded by the Magistrate of other findings arrived at by him had no relevance and was not admissible in evidence before the competent Court. Hence, it is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate by order dated 29.10.2001 in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be relied upon by the civil Court trying TS No. 126/2007. 10. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondents, the LCR has been perused. 11. 10. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondents, the LCR has been perused. 11. The only point of determination which arises in this revision is whether the learned trial Court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegality or with material irregularity which vitiates the impugned order. 12. In order to answer the said point of determination, it is seen that in the pleadings made in the suit, the petitioner has not disclosed that prior to the institution of the Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., he had instituted Case No. 609m/2005 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. As per the contents of the certified copy of the said order (Ext.F), the second parties therein were (1) Biren Kr. Das, (2) Smt. Anjali Hazarika and (3) Arnab Hazarika. As per the order dated 22.12.2005, proceedings under Section 145/146 was drawn up by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate in Case No. 609M/2005, whereby both the parties were restrained from entering into the suit land, as such, the land remained attached till the said proceeding was dismissed by order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (M), whereby all previous orders were withdrawn. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the declaration given in Case No. 180M/1990 cannot stand as an evidence to show that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land, rather, the non disclosure of Case No. 609M/2005, prima facie discloses that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land. 13. Moreover, it is seen that in his cross examination, the petitioner (PW-1) had admitted that “One Birendra Kr. Das was developing the suit land on behalf of the predecessor of defendants and then I filed case u/s. 145 Cr.P.C.” In his cross examination, the PW-1 was aware that 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was dropped as the dispute was a civil dispute. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that land could not have been developed by the respondents without having possession over the said land. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that land could not have been developed by the respondents without having possession over the said land. Hence, there is no doubt that the claim of having been dispossessed from the suit land on 12.12.2006 is contrary to the evidence available on record in form of (i) cross examination of PW-1, (ii) Ext.E, and (iii) Ext.F. The most damning evidence against the petitioner is his cross examination of DW-1, which is extracted as follows – “It is not a fact that since my husband could not pay the premium as per the terms of agreement as such, the possession was not handed over and symbolic possession was cancelled. It is not a fact that the topography of the area surrounding the suit land changed drastically from 1992 to 2005 and as such, we could not locate the land which my husband purchased and forcibly entered into the vacant land of the plaintiff.” This shows that the petitioner was not only aware of the sale of suit land to the predecessor of the respondents by the Assam State Housing Board but he was also aware that possession over the suit land was also handed over to him. It is further seen that in the cross examination of DW-1, the petitioner had reinforced the stand of the respondents because on being asked, the DW-1 had replied that – “We engage Biren Kr. Das as contractor to develop the suit land and we paid money to him. The suit land was attached in the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding.” Similarly, the evidence of DW-2 that he was doing earth filling in the suit land in the month of November, 2005 for the predecessor of the respondents could not be demolished in his cross examination. In the cross examination of DW-3, the said witness had stated that the land of the petitioner was situated after one plot where the suit land is situated and that the suit land is 1K-5L as per the office file of Assam State Housing Board and denied that the suit land was 1K- 6L. He deposed that he was one of the witnesses in the sale deed executed in favour of the predecessor of the respondent. He deposed that he was one of the witnesses in the sale deed executed in favour of the predecessor of the respondent. The DW-4 had brought with him the record of allotment of land to Amar Hazarika, the predecessor of the respondents, which was stated to be that of Assam State Housing Board and he had admitted in his cross examination that possession of the land was delivered to Amar Hazarika in the year 1992 and that the land was vacant prior to allotment to Amar Hazarika. Thus, the evidence in this case, both documentary and oral evidence of the witness does not support the case that was projected by the petitioner, but the evidence and documents does lend support to the case projected by the respondents. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no factual error in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that paragraph 5 of order dated 29.10.2001 (Ext.1) to the effect that – “O/c. Noonmati P.S. shall put the 1st party into the possession of the schedule land. I vacate the order of attachment from the land. Inform O/s Noonmati P.S. to execute the order and submit compliance report” is inconsistent with finding that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. 14. It is also seen that although as per the plaint, the suit land was for 1K-6L, but in his cross examination, the petitioner (PW-1) has stated that the suit was for a plot of land measuring 1B-2K-16L. Though the suit was filed against the respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 being the son of Late Amar Hazarika, in his cross examination the petitioner had claimed that he was not aware if during the pendency of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Late Amar Hazarika, the predecessors of the respondents had died on 11.05.2006. The PW-2, amongst others, had admitted in his cross examination that “The statements made in para-6 of my examination in chief regarding construction of wall on 24.10.06 is false.” Lastly, the said witness had deposed in his cross examination that “I have not read the contents of my examination- in- chief.” 15. In his cross examination, the stand of DW-3 was that the land of petitioner was not the suit land but was in south of suit land. In his cross examination, the stand of DW-3 was that the land of petitioner was not the suit land but was in south of suit land. It is seen that during the cross examination of DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4, their evidence that the predecessor- in- interest of the respondents was put into possession of the suit land in the year 1992 could not be negated. 16. Therefore, on the basis of the discussions above, this Court has no option but to concur with the finding of the learned trial Court on issues No. 1 to 5 by holding that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that he was in possession of the suit land six months prior to the institution of the suit on 27.02.2007, which is the condition precedent for filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 17. The learned Senior advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the plea that the suit was barred by limitation was raised for the first time in this appeal and the same was never the stand of the respondents in the written statement. In this connection, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue of limitation can be raised at any stage, and even in revision. Nonetheless, as stated herein before, it is worth repeating that in his cross examination, the petitioner (PW-1) had admitted about the proceedings of Case No. 609m/2005 was under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in this case, the petitioner has not been able to establish his possession prior to 6 (six) months from the date of institution of the suit, the plea of being dispossessed on 12.12.2006 is rightly found to be negated by the learned trial Court. Thus, once the factum of being in possession of the suit land prior to 12.12.2006 stands disproved, no case is made out by the petitioner that he was dispossessed illegally by the respondents on 12.12.2006 without following due process of law. 18. Thus, the point of determination as formulated herein before is answered by holding that in the present case in hand, the learned trial Court has not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, none of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the 5 (five) issues framed for trial can be faulted with. 19. Thus, none of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the 5 (five) issues framed for trial can be faulted with. 19. In the present case in hand, the scope of this revisional Court is limited only to the extent of examining whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to possession or dispossession is vitiated by jurisdictional error. However, on examining the evidence on record, no such jurisdictional error is found in this case. 20. As a result, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, no case is made out for interference with judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in T.S. No. 126/2007. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 21. Let the LCR be returned forthwith.