Holding

A decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be interfered with by a revision unless the High Court is satisfied that a specific ground within Section 115 CPC exists, which was not the case here.

Summary

The appellants filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking recovery of possession of immovable property from which they claimed to have been dispossessed. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Jharkhand High Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that a decree under Section 6 cannot be interfered with by revision except in limited circumstances and that the High Court had not examined the record or identified any ground for revision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not complied with the parameters of revisional jurisdiction and that the proper remedy for an unsuccessful party in a Section 6 suit is to file a regular suit on title, not a revision. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the revision proceedings, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

The scope of revisional jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 115 CPC over a decree passed in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Whether a decree under Section 6 can be set aside by a revision when the High Court has not identified any specific ground within Section 115
The appropriate remedy for a party unsuccessful in a Section 6 suit

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 6

Subjects

Specific Relief ActSection 6summary suitrevisionCivil Procedure CodeSection 115revisional jurisdictionpossessiondispossessiondecreeappeal

Judgment

SANJA Y KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. A
v.
GULBAHAR SHEIKH AND ORS.

APRIL 2, 2004

[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]

Specific Relief Act, 1963:

S.6-Suit-Decreed--Remedy against-Plaintiffs filed suit under s.6
complaining of their dispossession from immoveable property-Suit decreed- ' C
Defendant's revision u!s J15 CPC allowed by High Court and suit dismissed-
Held, the remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under s. 6 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 s.6--The remedy.offiling a revision
is available but that is only by way of an exception, for the High Court would D
not interfere with a decree or order under s. 6 except on a case for illterference
• """' being made out within the well settled parameters of the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC-On facts, High Court has not looked into all the
material available on record and has not indicated any of the grounds u/s J15
CPC so as to exercise revisional jurisdiction calling for reversa~· of.decision E
of trial court u!s 6 of the Act-Order of High Court set aside-Revision before
High Court shall stand restored for decision aji-esh-Code of Ci~il Procedure,
1908-S. /l 5. ..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2040 of
2004. ." F
From the Judgment and Order dated 25: 7.200 I of the Jharkhand High
Court at Ranchi in C.R. No. 223 of 1999.

Sugriva Dubey and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants.
G
Abhimeet Sinha, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Minakshi Nag and Gourav Kejriwal
for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered.

735 H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j2004] 3 S.C.R.

A 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. Evidenc~. oral and documentary,
B 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
C 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 firiding out the
D 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
E 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
F 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
G for the purpose of reversing the decree of the trial Court relied on the oral
statements ofNatai 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
H has not looked into all the material available on record and has also not
S.K. PANDEY L GULBAHAR SHEIKH 737
"' indicated clearly the availability of any of the grounds within the parameters A
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 B
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. C
R.P. Appeal allowed.