Sanjay
Kumar Pandey & Ors Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh & Ors [2004] Insc 219 (2 April 2004)
R.C.
Lahoti & Ashok Bhan.
ORDER
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.303/2002)
Leave
granted.
Plaintiff-appellants
filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') complaining of their dispossession of immovable
property otherwise than in due course of law by the respondents. The suit was
contested. Evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced. The trial Court found
the plaintiff-appellants entitled to a decree and hence decreed the suit.
The
defendant-respondents filed a revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'the Code', for short). The revision has been
allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants directed to be
dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal by special
leave.
A suit
under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the
enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession
and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the
institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Sub-Section (3) of
Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in
any suit instituted under this Section. No review of any such order or decree
is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of
the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property
and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of
the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act.
Thus, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of
unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a
revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; for the High
Court would not interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of the Act
except on a case for interference being made out within the well settled
parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
Code.
A
perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the High Court has for the
purpose of reversing the decree of the trial Court relied on the oral
statements of Natai Sheikh, PW-3 and Ram Sevak Ram, PW-5. One sentence each
from the two depositions has been extracted and set out by the High Court in
its order for the purpose of forming an opinion that they are not the
plaintiffs but the defendants who were in possession of the suit property before
six months from the date of the institution of the suit. The High Court has not
looked into all the material available on record and has also not indicated
clearly the availability of any of the grounds within the parameters of Section
115 of the Code so as to exercise revisional jurisdiction calling for reversal
of the decision of the trial Court under Section 6 of the Act. The revision
filed before the High Court cannot be said to have been satisfactorily disposed
of.
The
appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The civil
revision in the High Court shall stand restored to file for hearing and
decision afresh in accordance with law. No order as to the costs in this
appeal.
Parties,
through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the High Court
on 17th May, 2004.
Back
Pages: 1 2
