14.CRA.257-08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2008 Chandrakant Balu Koyande. ..Applicant. Versus Devendra Kesharinath Kini and another. ..Respondents. .......................... Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.L.K. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. .......................... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 24 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is a Civil Revision Application filed by the applicant/orig.plaintiff challenging the order of dismissal of the suit, passed by Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay on 24th January, 2008 in S.C. Suit No.7319 of 2000. The said Suit was filed under the provisions of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act on the basis of prior possession of the suit room and dispossession within six months of filing of the Suit. 14.CRA.257-08 2 3. According to own case of the applicant/plaintiff, he was out of Bombay for his job in Oil Mill at Assam during the period from 1993 till 1997. However, intermittently his two sisters, residents of Mumbai, were looking after his rented premises. According to him the landlord, father of defendant No.1, was not accepting the rent and at time rent was being sent by post. However, apparently there is no any proof produced during the hearing of the Suit. Admittedly the only document produced by the applicant/plaintiff during the trial is his Ration Card of the suit room which show that it was cancelled long back in the year, 1990. Also electricity bill for June & July, 1994 is produced by the applicant/plaintiff. However it is of much prior period to his alleged dispossession some time during February and March, 1998. The suit for restoration of possession was filed in April, 1998. According to the respondent/defendant some time from March, 1996, the plaintiff was not in actual physical possession of the suit room. Apart from the oral evidence of the respondent/defendant, he had produced electricity bills for the suit room for the period from January-February, 1996 and also produced Ration Card of the address of the suit room and which is valid since 14.CRA.257-08 3 1995. Admittedly, apart from the oral evidence of the applicant/plaintiff and apart from his Ration Card and electricity bill, there is nothing brought before the trial Court during hearing of the suit filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. As against this, the above referred documents were produced by the respondent/defendant. 4. Apart from the above, another factual position cannot be ignored as to non-examination of sisters of the applicant/plaintiff. Their evidence was important in view of the case of the plaintiff that they used to look after the said room in his absence and when specifically it is a case of the plaintiff that he was out of Mumbai for his job from 1993 to 1997. It is also a factual position that though allegedly the complaint was lodged by his sisters with the concerned police station regarding attempts of dispossession by the defendant, and when allegedly the defendant gave a statement to the police undertaking not to dispossess the plaintiff, no such record was produced before the Court. Considering the factual position, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion as to non-establishment of the case of the actual possession of the suit room with the plaintiff and 14.CRA.257-08 4 as such rightly dismissed the Suit. Considering the scope of this Court in revisional jurisdiction, there is nothing to interfere with the said impugned order and as such the present Civil Revision Application is disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. [ii] No order as to costs. [A.R.JOSHI,J.]