GUWAHATI, India, July 26 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 25:

1. Heard Mr. BK Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. AK Sarma, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, 'the Code) has been invoked challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed in Title Suit No.02/2014 whereby the suit which was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the SR Act') was dismissed.

3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that a perusal of Section 6 of the SR Act shows that what is envisaged in such proceedings is a suit of a summary nature. The question which is required to be adjudicated in such suit is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land within 6(six) months from the date of filing of the suit and if dispossessed, otherwise, than in due course of law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 664 at paragraph 4 & 5 being relevant are quoted hereinbelow:

"4) 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 wellsettled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.

5) 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 it was 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 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."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqDhfhv9eTcPti48EQT1N44h%2Flx7hrWH6XJnBDWvr%2F7Hj&caseno=CRP/117/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010224172024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.