Smt. Mandakini Eknath Renuse vs M/S. Navketan Builders, Partnership Firm, Thr. Partner Shri. Ramniklal Champaklal Kothari
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010188422021
2026:BHC-AS:44608
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2023
Smt. Mandakini Eknath Renuse
Age-53, Occu-Unknown Residing
at - 1131, Shivaji nagar, Fergussion
Collage Road, Pune. ...Applicant
V/S.
1. M/s. Navketan Builders A Registered
Partnership Firm, Having its office at - 601,
Commerce House, Dr. Nagindas Master Road,
Mumbai and Pune office at 322/19,
Phule Colony, Shankersheth Road, Pune-411042
Through Its Partner Shri. Ramniklal Champaklal
Kothari And Ors.
2. Shri. Chandrakant Waman Renuse
Age-Adult, Occu-Unknown
Residing at-1131, Shivaji nagar,
Fergussion College Road, Pune.
3. Abhijit Eknath Renuse
Age-Adult, Occu-Unknown
Residing at-1131, Shivaji nagar,
Fergussion College Road, Pune. ...Respondents
___________________
Adv. Shilpan Gaonkar i/b Prabhakar M. Jadhav, for the Applicant.
Adv. Rohan Sawant i/b Vilas B. Tapkir, Tanvir Shaikh, for the
Respondent.
___________________
1/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
ST
RESERVED ON : 31 AUGUST, 2026.
TH
PRONOUNCED ON : 30 OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :-
1.
Heard Advocate Shilpan Gaonkar learned counsel for the revision
applicant and Advocate Rohan Sawant learned counsel for Respondent
No.1.
2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
parties.
3.
By this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, the original defendant no. 2 has assailed the
judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the trial Court in Special
Civil Suit No. 1334 of 2012. The revision applicant is the defendant No. 2 in
the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 1334 of 2012 which was filed by the
respondent no.1 herein, seeking possession under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act,1963 inter alia claiming reliefs of declaration, permanent and
mandatory injunction, with respect to the suit property described in the
plaint.
4.
The suit under Section 6 was filed by the plaintiff with respect to
Room No. 3, admeasuring 255 sq. ft situated on the second floor of the
building constructed on the part of land bearing CTS No. 1131 at
Shivajinagar FC Road, Pune, within limits of Pune Municipal Corporation.
2/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
The plaintiff, claiming to be a registered partnership firm pleaded about
earlier ownership of the suit property and it is stated that the property at CTS
No. 1131 at Sivajinagar was previously owned by Shirole family, from
whom, family members of Kenjale family acquired leasehold rights of the
said property in the year 1980. It is stated that Shri. Kenjale family members
simultaneously executed a power of attorney in favour of Shri P. C. Kothari
and R. C. Kothari for lawful development of the property. Accordingly,
development was carried out by the plaintiff's firm comprising members of
Kothari family as partners. It is alleged that necessary building development
plans have been sanctioned from the Pune Municipal Corporation and the
building was constructed to accommodate existing property occupants on
the property.
4.1 It is the case of plaintiff that late Shri. Waman Ranuse was
occupying one room admeasuring about 100 square feet on the first floor of
the old stone building which was existing on the property bearing CTS No.
1131. He claimed to be tenant of Kenjale family with respect to the said
room, and claimed to have acquired leasehold rights from the erstwhile
owners. During the development work Shri. Waman Ranue had expired. The
defendant no. 1 Chandrakant Waman Ranuse is son of Shri. Waman Ranuse
and defendant no. 2 and 3 are widow and son respectively of late Sri. Eknath
Waman Ranuse who is deceased elder brother of defendant no. 1. After
death of Waman Ranuse, rent receipt was to be issued in the name of only
3/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
one of the heir of deceased tenant. As per request of deceased Eknath, rent
receipt was issued in his name. It is stated in the plaint that thereafter, as per
letter given by deceased Eknath Ranuse on 05.05.1988 he had given consent
regarding acquisition of premises on ownership basis in the new building in
lieu of the room in old building in the name of Chandrakant Wamanth
Ranuse. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 on 12.05.1988 to that effect. In view of this arrangement in
between them, the defendant no. 1 executed a possession receipt on
15.05.1991 regarding delivery of possession of room no. 2 on the first floor
in the old stoned building to the plaintiff in discharge of his obligation and in
terms of the agreement dated 12.05.1988.
4.2 It is also alleged in the suit that on 15.05.1991 defendant no. 1
had sent handwritten letter to plaintiff assuring thereby to handover
possession of the room no.2 of the old building on 24-05-1991 and Ramesh
Nivruti Renuse had also signed this letter as witness. In the background of
these facts it is submitted that in accordance with agreement dated
12.05.1988, the defendant no. 1 along with his deceased brother late Shri.
Eknath and his family started residing in Room No. 2 of the new building
and the suit premises were kept under the plaintiff's lock and key and thus he
had got possession of the suit premises.
4.3 It is alleged that thereafter in the month of June 2012, the
plaintiff learnt that the defendant no. 1 and his wife have committed criminal
4/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
trespass into the suit premises by forcibly breaking it open. It is alleged that
therefore the plaintiff had issued a notice on 24.06.2012 by Registered Post
Ad. and called upon the defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit premises within 24
hours. The defendant no. 1 gave a reply on 06.07.2012 and thereafter
plaintiff lodged report against defendant no. 1 at Sivajinagar Police Station,
Pune on 11.07.2012 alleging house breaking and criminal trespass. In this
background the plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act seeking several reliefs including possession of the suit premises.
5.
In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared before
the Trial Court, but failed to file written statement within stipulated time and
the suit proceeded without their written statement. Evidence was laid on
behalf of the plaintiff by examining one witness, namely Shri. Ramaniklal
Champal Kothari, who had filed his evidence on affidavit and who was
cross-examined by advocate on behalf of defendant no. 1. His cross-
examination was adopted by defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 did not
cross-examine plaintiff's witness.
6.
Besides oral evidence, the plaintiff has relied upon documentary
evidence and during his evidence the original agreement dated 12.05.1988,
letters issued by defendant no.1 to plaintiff so also the original possession
receipt dated 15.05.1991 given by defendant no. 1 and the notice and
complaint to the police department came to be exhibited.
7.
By its judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019, the suit came to be
5/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
decreed for possession and the trial Court also directed an enquiry into
mesne profits.
8.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court, the original defendant no. 2 had filed the instant Civil Revision
Application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.
9.
Learned counsel for revision applicant Adv. Shilpan Gaonkar
raised several grounds and his submissions are succinctly stated below.
i. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was beyond limitation since in
absence of specific pleading about date of dispossession, the suit
suffered from defect with regard to actual date of cause of action and
as such it deserved to be dismissed on that count.
By inviting attention to pleadings in para 12 and 25 of the
plaint he submitted that since the plaintiffs have failed to plead and
prove their alleged dispossession with respect to a particular date,
the suit deserved to be dismissed on that count only.
In support of his submissions he had placed reliance on
judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Indraprastha Ice
and Cold Storage Limited Versus M/s Cardiff Associates Pvt.Ltd.
decided on 12.12.2023 in C.R.P. 122/2022, CMAPL No. 36959 and
29969 of 2023. By inviting the position of law laid down in this
judgment, he submitted that the limitation period to file a suit under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act must be counted from the date of
6/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
actual dispossession and not from the date of knowledge of
dispossession. He submitted that in the instant case, the plaintiff has
not at all stated any date of dispossession but has only made
averment about knowledge of dispossession in June 2012 and thus
on account of failure to state precise date, the suit deserved to be
dismissed.
ii. He also submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove his
possession over the suit property and in absence of any precise date
till which the plaintiff was in possession, the suit deserved to be
dismissed.
iii. The plaintiff has failed to place on record any document in the
nature of lease deed or development agreement establishing his prior
possession. He also submitted that there is nothing on record to
establish existence of plaintiff's partnership firm and in absence of
any documents in that regard the suit deserved to be dismissed.
10. In support of his contentions learned counsel for revision
applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of
(1) Asma Lateef And Another versus Shabbir Ahmed And Another
reported at (2024) 4 SCC page 696.
(2) Nikhila Divyang Mehta And Another versus Pritesh P. Sanghvi And
Others reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 779.
7/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
(3) R. Nagraj (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another Versus Rajmani And
Others reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 762.
11. By relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asma
Lateef (supra) he submitted that even when the defendant has failed to file
written statement, the plaintiff is required to prove his pleaded case by
adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts in accordance with law.
He placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Nikhila Divyang Mehta (supra) and R. Nagraj (supra) to highlight the legal
position about mandatory nature of Section 3 of Limitation Act. He
submitted that once a limitation prescribed for institution of a suit expires
and even if limitation is not set up as a defence, the provision obliges the
court to dismiss the suit as barred by limitation.
As regards maintainability of the Civil Revision Application for
challenging the judgment in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,
he placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar
Pandey (supra) particularly paragraph no.4 therein and submitted that in
absence of any appeal being provided, the challenge by way of Civil
Revision Application is the appropriate remedy.
12. Per contra advocate Sawant learned counsel for respondent no.
1, made vehement submissions to oppose the Civil Revision Application.
His primary submission is that the revision applicant failed to make out any
exceptional case warranting interference under Section 115 of Code of Civil
8/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
Procedure to the judgment in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.
His main ground of attack is based on the contention that the revision
applicant who is original defendant no.2 in the suit, having failed to file any
written statement and lead evidence in support of its contentions, cannot be
permitted to raise any factual disputes pertaining to possession or ownership
of the suit property.
13. As regards contentions about dispossession, he submitted that
the original plaintiff has pleaded and proved by leading evidence that the
plaintiff was in possession and was dispossessed as revealed to him in June
2012 and in support of this submission invited attention to paragraph nos. 12
and 25 of the plaint. He submitted that there is no cross-examination by the
defendant on this aspect. He placed reliance on the exhibited documents
submitted by the original plaintiff, including correspondence exchanged
between the defendant no. 1 and plaintiff firm. He submitted that the
plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that the suit premises has never
been sold to anybody and have been kept under their lock and key, and as
such their possession and subsequent dispossession was established.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the
findings recorded by the Trial Court with respect to possession of the
th
original plaintiff and by referring to advocate’s later dated 6 July 2012, he
submitted that although the original defendants have contended that they
have been residing in the premises as owner since the year 1991 and had
9/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
agreed to get executed a registered sell deed in their favour, however, there
is nothing to indicate that any suit for specific performance in the relation to
suit property was filed. He submitted that the issue of possession like any
other issue in a civil proceedings would have to be decided on the basis of
preponderance of probability and the surrounding circumstances. In the
instant case, the original plaintiff has established that he was in possession
of the suit property and was dispossessed within six months of filing of the
suit and since there was no written statement on record and further in
absence of any cross-examination on this aspect, the plaintiffs suit deserved
to be decreed as rightly done by the Trial Court.
15. As regards the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of
Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage Private Limited (supra) , relied upon by
revision applicant, he submitted that the judgment is distinguishable on facts
since it was a case of sub tenancies and in that case the plaintiff himself was
a lessee. He therefore submitted that in the instant case, in view of a specific
averment in the plaint regarding date of knowledge about dispossession in
June 2012, the filing of suit in the month of October 2012 has to be treated
to be well within limitation. He submitted that conjoint reading of para 12
and 25 of the plaint, evidently makes it clear that the plaintiff was
dispossessed by the defendant in June 2012, and in absence of any cross-
examination on this particular aspect, the contention of the plaintiff
remained uncontroverted. He therefore submitted that the plaintiff’s suit was
10/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
perfectly within limitation and the issue of limitation being a question of fact
has been rightly decided by the Trial Court.
16. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on following
judgments :
(i) ITC Limited versus Adarsh cooperative housing Society Limited, (2013)
10 SCC 169.
(ii) Shah Mohammad Noor Khan versus Jan Mohammad Vali Mohammad,
2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 23.
(iii) Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives
versus Muddasani Sarojana reported at ( 2016) 12 SCC 288.
(iv) Kishore Devrao Deshpande Versus Sarang Padmakar Patil, 2012 (1)
Mh.LJ.
17. By relying on the judgment in the matter of ITC Limited
(supra) he submitted that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,
the contentious issues about possession can be decided on the basis of
material on record. Reliance is placed on the judgment of coordinate bench
of this Court in Shah Mohamed Noor Khan (supra) to contend that in
revisional jurisdiction, High Court would not interfere with a decree or order
under Section 6, except on a case being made out within parameters set out
for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
He placed reliance on judgment in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah
(supra) to highlight the effect of non-cross-examination of the plaintiff’s
witness on the point of his possession and assertion about knowledge in June
2012.
11/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
By relying on judgment of coordinate bench in Kishor Deorao
Deshpande (supra) he submitted that in absence of any perversity or
jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the trial Court, no
interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and decree.
18. In the backdrop of these submissions, rival contentions fall for
my consideration.
19. Challenge in the instant Civil Revision Application is to the
judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Trial Court in a suit
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Since Sub-section 3 of
Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in
any suit under Section 6, the remedy of filing a revision application is
available. Pertinently, this remedy is by way of an exception and
interference by this Court with the decree has to be confined within the
parameters of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. As such, in view of the position of law as laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Pandey And Others
Versus Gulbahar Sheikh And Others reported at (2004) 4 SCC 664 , the
instant Civil Revision Application is taken up for consideration.
20. The controversy involved in the instant matter arises out of a suit
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the respondent no.1
alleging that the plaintiff has learnt that the defendant no.1 and his wife had
committed ‘wanton criminal trespass’ in the suit property and on the basis
12/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
of these pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged that it was dispossessed and has
sought for the relief of delivery of vacant possession, along with other reliefs
in the nature of declaration and injunction as claimed in the suit. The crux of
controversy in the instant matter is the sustainability of the claim of plaintiff
who has alleged dispossession. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides
for a remedy to a person who has been dispossessed, to file a summary suit
and it is crucial that the suit has to be filed within six months from the
alleged dispossession. As such, the date of dispossession becomes very
crucial in deciding the vital aspect of limitation. The main thrust of
arguments of the revision applicant is, absence of any precise pleadings with
respect to the date of dispossession and it is vehemently submitted that the
date of knowledge is irrelevant for the purpose of Section 6(2)(a) and only
the date of dispossession is most relevant. To buttress his submissions
learned counsel for the revision applicant has placed reliance on judgment of
the Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Indraprastha Ice and Cold
Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Before the controversial issue is appreciated
further, it is beneficial to have a look at provision of Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, which is reproduced below :
“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.
1. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable
property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person
through whom he has been in possession or any person claiming
through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof,
13/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
2. No suit under this section shall be brought -
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
3. No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit
instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order
or decree be allowed.
4. Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to
establish his title to such property and to recover possession
thereof.”
21. Thus, in the background of provisions of Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, in order to appreciate the contentions of the revision
application, it is necessary to have a look at the pleadings in the plaint in this
regard. On careful perusal of the plaint, it appears that the relevant pleadings
are contained only in paragraph no.12 and one sentence of paragraph no. 25,
which are reproduced below :
‘12. In June 2012 plaintiff learnt that defendant no.1
and his wife committed wanton criminal trespass into the
suit premises by illegally and forcibly breaking open
plaintiff’s lock and started user thereof for cooking
purposes for supply of tiffins to employed persons’.
‘25. Cause of action for the present suit can be said to
have arisen for the first time in June 2012 when
plaintiff noticed unauthorized, wanton, trespass by
defendant no. 1 and his wife in the suit premises i.e.
14/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
Room No.3 and using the same for the purposes of
cooking to cater the need of their ostensible business of
supplying tiffin to employed persons’.
22. A perusal of the above pleadings clearly show that the plaintiff
has not stated any specific date of dispossession. Further, plaintiff has only
stated that he has learnt in June 2012 that the defendant no.1 and his wife
had committed ‘wanton criminal trespass’. A perusal of the plaint shows that
there are detailed averments with respect to the other documents executed in
between plaintiff and defendant no.1 including the agreement dated
12.05.1988 and possession receipt dated 15.05.1991 allegedly showing that
the plaintiff got the possession. Pertinent to note that the plaintiff’s prayer
clauses A and B are with respect to the declaration claimed by him about
status of the defendant being rank trespassers and challenge to the
possessory title of the defendants over the suit premises. In prayer clause-C
in addition to the relief of the mandatory injunction the plaintiff has inserted
a prayer to deliver a vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises.
Thus, the whole tenor of the plaint shows that although the plaintiff has filed
the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, but has primarily
questioned the possessory title of the defendants and has even sought for a
declaratory relief. There are no specific pleadings as to the date from which
the plaintiff was dispossessed and considering the fact that the plaintiff has
chosen to file the summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
15/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
this aspect becomes very crucial.
It is interesting to note that the plaintiff has pleaded that the
defendant nos. 1 and 2 have committed ‘wanton criminal trespass into the
suit premises’ and so also the notice dated 24.06.2012 also refers to the
conduct of the defendant as illegal act amounting to an offence and the
notice warns the defendants of initiation of criminal proceedings before the
Pune Police Commissioner. As such, the plaintiff has not even used the term
‘dispossessed’, in para 12 and 25 of the plaint, leave apart specifying any
date of alleged dispossession. The conspicuous absence of any specific date
of alleged dispossession is crucial to decide the maintainability of suit under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which has to be filed within a period of
six months from the date of dispossession. Crucial to note the plaintiff has
chosen to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, instead of
filing a suit seeking declaration, injunction and possession based on title. As
such, it was all the more imperative for the plaintiff to specifically plead and
prove the contentions about dispossession. Even provisions of Order VI
Rule 4 of CPC require a plaintiff to specifically plead the details for
demonstrating a cause of action and in absence of any specific pleadings, the
plaintiff is bound to suffer.
23. While considering the pleadings of the plaintiff as contained in
paragraph nos. 12 and 25 (as referred above) and even the contents of the
notice dated 24.06.2012 (Exhibit- 7 0) it becomes clear that the plaintiff has
16/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
only asserted that in June 2012 it has got knowledge about trespass by the
defendants. At this stage, it is relevant to note that Section 3 of the
Limitation Act is mandatory in nature. It has to be thus noted that once
limitation period prescribed for instituting a cause of action expires and even
if limitation is not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit as
barred by limitation. Reliance can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Nikhil Divyang Mehta And Another (supra)
and R. Nagraj (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another (supra ).
Applying the legal position to the facts of this case, it has to be
noted that the plaintiff has not pleaded and proved the precise date of
dispossession and in absence thereof there is no material to show that the
plaintiff has filed the suit within a period of six months from the date of
dispossession. Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act provides that no suit
under the section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the
date of dispossession. After giving anxious consideration to the rival
contentions, I find the reliance placed by the counsel for applicant on the
judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) appropriate. As such, I find force with the submission of
counsel for revision applicant and the suit in question deserves to be
dismissed on this count.
24. One more important aspect about absence of written statement
by the defendant also needs to be taken into consideration. It has to be noted
17/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
that, although the defendants had not filed their written statement in the suit,
still they had the right to contest the suit by cross-examining the plaintiff’s
witnesses. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal
representatives versus Muddasani Sarojana (referred supra) . In the instant
case, the defendants have exercised their rights and have conducted
extensive cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness. On perusal of the
evidence led by the plaintiff, it becomes amply clear that the plaintiff has not
at all asserted any specific date of dispossession. Since the plaintiff has filed
the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it was incumbent upon
the plaintiff to prove the whole of its case and mere absence of written
statement would not confer any advantage on the plaintiff to claim that his
assertions stood proved.
25. While testing legality of the impugned judgment and order, if
the reasoning recorded by the trial Court with respect to this crucial aspect
are seen then it becomes amply clear that the trial Court has recorded
findings about the suit being filed within a period of six months, in view of
the plaintiffs assertion that he learnt about the criminal trespass in June
2012. The reasoning recorded by the trial Court in paragraph nos. 23 and 28
on this crucial aspect shows that the trial Court has treated the date of
knowledge as date of dispossession and has even observed in para 28, ‘even
if, it is assumed that he came to know about the same in June, 2012, the suit
18/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
is filed within a period of six months’. This shows that the trial Court has
st
treated the date of knowledge in June 2012 as the basis to infer that 1 June,
2012 could be the date of dispossession. I find this reasoning palpably
erroneous since in any case, plaintiff’s averment that he has learnt about
dispossession in June 2012 would at the most amount to his getting
st
knowledge on 1 June, 2012. This cannot be construed to mean that the
st
dispossession was on 1 June, 2012.
Thus, in absence of any specific date of dispossession being pleaded
in the plaint, the trial Court has erroneously treated the date of dispossession
st
as on 1 June, 2012 and concluded that the suit is filed within a period of six
months from the date. I find, this issue, which goes to the root of the
controversy, regarding very maintainability of the suit, is wrongly decided
by the trial Court which has resulted into jurisdictional error requiring
interference by this Court under revisional jurisdiction. I therefore find this
to be a fit case, in which interference is warranted to set aside the impugned
judgment and decree.
26. While dealing with the entire controversy, it has to be noted that
the rights claimed by the plaintiffs and defendants, based on their title could
be subject matter of an independent litigation and in view of the position of
law as clarified by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
ITC Limited (supra) the plaintiff is entitled to agitate his rights in a fresh
suit seeking declaration and possession. However, while claiming a right to
19/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
61-CRA-116-2023.odt
possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which is in the nature
of a summary suit, the plaintiff was obliged to specifically plead and prove
the possession and dispossession, with reference to specific dates to meet the
requirements of Section 6(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act.
27. On careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the
evidence on record and the position of law as laid down by several
judgments referred above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned
th
judgment and decree passed by the Court of 5 Additional Small Causes
Judge and Joint Civil Judge Sr. Division Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1334
of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
28. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Application is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set aside. The suit filed
by the plaintiff bearing Special Civil Suit No. 1334 of 2012 is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
20/20
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 17:44:47
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)