Full Judgment Text
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.