http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2040 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Gulbahar Sheikh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2004

BENCH:

R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

O R D E R

(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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

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.