: 1 : 615-11-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2011 Balasaheb Jagannath Padol & Anr. .. Applicants v/s. Govind Trimbak Pawar & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. M.S. Karnik for the applicants Mr. M.M. Shthaye for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 had filed the suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nifad, Dist. Nashik being Special Civil Suit No.85 of 2001 for recovery of possession of the land mentioned in the said suit from the present applicants on the ground that the present applicants on or about 1st April, 2001 dispossessed the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and that provided respondent nos. 1 to 4 a cause of action for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific : 2 : 615-11-cra=.sxw Relief Act. The said suit was tried by the learned Senior Judge, Senior Division, Nifad and by judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2011 the suit was decreed in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Since the suit was filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and as no appeal is provided, the present writ petition is filed. 2. I have heard learned advocates on both sides extensively. It was sought to be submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Karnik for the applicants that since the respondent nos. 1 to 4 approached the Court with the case that they were the tenants in respect of the land in question qua the applicants, the provisions of Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act are attracted and that the suit could not have been entertained by learned Trial Judge. This argument, in my view, cannot be accepted because in a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the relations between the plaintiffs and the defendants are not to be gone into by the Court. The Court trying the suit under Section 6 has to ascertain whether the grievance made by the plaintiffs that their possession was taken away in a high handed manner by the defendants or not. If the court is satisfied that the defendants have in high handed manner dispossessed the plaintiffs, the possession has to be : 3 : 615-11-cra=.sxw restored. In my view, in the present case, the averments in the plaint whereby the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have been referred to as the tenants or the present applicants as landlords or original defendant nos. 4 to 7 as the earlier landlords, is only by way of a description and that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division was not required to go into the title of the plaintiffs at or about time, when they were dispossessed. In my view, this argument advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted. 3. So far as the question of possession of respondent nos. 1 to 4 on the relevant date is concerned, the learned Judge has discussed the same and has in paragraph 26 clearly accepted the stand of the respondent nos.1 to 4 that they were in possession. It is to be noted that the original landlords namely defendant nos. 4 to 7 had sold the land to the present applicants on or about 24th February, 2000 and thereafter the incident of alleged dispossession is of 1st July, 2001. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has rightly accepted the stand of the respondent nos.1 to 4 that on the relevant date, they were in possession and that they have been dispossessed by the present applicants in a high handed manner. Once this finding is recorded, the learned Judge was right in directing that the : 4 : 615-11-cra=.sxw possession be delivered to the present applicants by respondent nos. 1 to 4. The scope of the Civil Revision Application is very narrow. I am inclined to observe that learned Judge has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and there is no reason to take a different view, than the view taken by the learned Judge. Hence, Civil Revision Application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that in paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2011 the learned Trial Judge has observed that original defendant nos. 4 to 7 sold the property to the present applicants in violation of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In my view, there was no need for the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division to arrive at this observation looking to the limited scope of under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The said observation cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. All questions in that behalf are left open. The later part of item no.2 of the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2011 by which present applicants are directed to hand over possession of the land mentioned in item no.2 has to be : 5 : 615-11-cra=.sxw confirmed on account of dismissal of the Civil Revision Application. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)