In Brief
Prayag Prasad Dube's son (appellant) sought possession of property forcibly taken by the respondents and their father. The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 448 IPC and ordered restoration of possession. After the respondents' appeal was dismissed, the appellant applied for possession implementation beyond 30 days. The trial court and higher courts rejected the application citing the 30-day limitation. The Supreme Court held that the 30-day limitation applies only to the trial court's initial order, not to applications seeking enforcement of an already-passed restoration order. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to restore possession within one month.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.