EN THE EHGE COURT OF CHEIATTESGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 73L OF 2004 / PE'mtgomER : Aged 60 years, sfo. Kalashram, Caste Aghariya, agriculturist r/o. Village Dhalam, P.C.No. 17, RI. Circls Bhagwamur, Tehsii Basna, Narayan , Distt. MahasamLmd (C.G.) Krighna Chandra agttd 55 years, sfo. Late Ram§ay Patel, agriculturist, r/o. Village Dhalam, RC. No, 17, RI. Circle Bhanwarpur, Tehsil Basna, Distt. Mahasarmmd [c.G.) State ofMadhya Pradesh (now Chhaitmgarh), through Cellectm‘ Mahasammid {C CI ~) WET PETITEGH TJRDER ARTICLE 2 7 O? THE CONS'HTUTION OF INDIA FOR I$SUAHCE OF WRIT IN IjiE NATURE OF WAMUS, CERT§0RARY AND ,f OR m QTEEER SUITABLE WRIT OF HIKE NAME W a, y k ( - : X HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abha Manohar Sa re 85 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhaiuddin Writ Petition No.732 of 2004 —\ PETITIONER Narayan Versus RESPONDENTs Krishna Chandra and others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aggearance : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. RS. Patel, Counsel for respondent N0. l. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (13.07.2012) The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sagre, J. Heard. (2) This is a writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (defendant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20.09.2003 passed by the Civi] Judge Class—I, Saraipali in Civil Suit No. 38 "A”/2002. s (3) By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Civil Judge was pleased to allow the plaintifiZs suitvfiled under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and grant‘dge‘cree, as claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant, in relation to the suit land. (4) In our opinion, filing of a Writ petition by the writ petitioner (defendant) appears to be a misconceived remedy resorted to by him. What is barred under Section 6 sub—section 3 of the Specific Relief Act is either appeal or review against such order or decree, but not the Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for the simple reason that any order passed by the Subordinate Court to the High Court is revisable, if there is no provision of filing any appeal against such judgment or decree. Such is the case here. (5) In the light of this ”discussion, we decline to interfere in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but grant liberty to the writ petitioner (defendant) to flle a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. in accordance With law to get rid of the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in the suit out of which this writ petition arlSCS. (6) Needless to observe, since in the meantime, much period has expired, the petitioner can also take recourse to filing of a Civil Suit to establish his title to the property in question and recover possession thereof, as provided under Section 6(4) of the Act, if law so permits him to do so. (7) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but subject to the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner. s g (8) No cost. «i d]; Sd/- g“ ' ‘é\ (G. Miniaajuddin') JUDGE (Abhay Manohar Sapre) JUDGE