SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. versus GULBAHAR SHEIKH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 02-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 J 15 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.of filing 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 J 15 
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. 
Abhimeet Sinha, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Minakshi Nag and Gourav Kejriwal 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered. 
735 
G 
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 par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.