The Supreme Court of India, on 12.02.2019, in Mahesh Dube v Shivbodh and Ors[1]., had allowed the appeal against the order of the lower Courts.

FACTS:

The  respondents father  was  the  tenant of  the appellant’s father. An eviction suit for failure in paying the rent was filed that was eventually decreed and in the execution, the possession of the tenanted house was delivered to appellant’s father.  

However, on the same night the father and grandmother of the respondents as well as the respondents themselves went to the house and took forceful possession of that house. When a report was lodged charges were farmed against the respondents as well as against the father and grandmother. However, during the pendency of the case, the grandmother of the respondents had died while the respondents as well the father had to face conviction under Section 448 of I.P.C. by the Trial Court along with a direction of handing over the disputed property to the complainant. Being aggrieved, an appeal was made before the Sessions Judge that was faced a dismissal eventually. 

Subsequently, an application  was filed by the present appellant’s father under Section  456 Cr.P.C. to hand over the disputed property, The application faced  a rejection in the hands  of the Trial Court upon the ground that no application could be filed beyond a period of thirty days from the date of the Appellant  Court’s order.  The Revision Petition as well as the petition that was filed    under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   in    the   High Court too were dismissed subsequently.  

As a result, the present appeal had been made before the Supreme Court of India.

 DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

The Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the High Court’s, Session Court’s and Trial Court’s orders and allowing the appeal held  that after the filing of the appeal, the order that was directed to restore the possession of the property had not been complied upon. After the filing of such appeal  by respondents and the father had  faced a dismissal, the present appellant’s father had applied  to seek the handover  of such   possession with regard to the terms   of order  that had already  been passed  by  the Trial Court when it had convicted the respondents and their father as  a result of which such limitation  period is not applicable. Limitation period shall only be made applicable if the Trial Court had not passed any order regarding the disputed property while convicting the accused.