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.