1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No. 97/2008 (Ah.Sattar Sheikh & others VERSUS Rajendra Zitruji Surkar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.C. Bhalerao, counsel for the applicant. Shri Kavishwar h/f Shri Amol Mardikar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this civil revision application, the applicants seek to challenge the judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pandharkawada on 19.08.2008 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, with costs. The respondent is the original plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was running a proprietary shop in the name of Ambika/Super Gas Agency in the suit premises since the year 1994. It 2 was pleaded by the plaintiff that without any right, title and interest, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property on 21.10.2000. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants had organised a march on 21.10.2000 so as to dispossess the plaintiff without any legal and lawful right. The defendants filed the written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff was running a gas agency in the premises since the year 1994. It was pleaded that the suit house was known as Shikshak Bhavan. The defendants further denied that they had organised a march on 21.10.2000 to forcibly remove the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff did not have any right to seek the relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial Court considered the evidence tendered by the parties and, on appreciation of the same, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs 3 and directed the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of the decree. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the trial Court was not justified in considering the issue of title of the parties over the suit property as it was only necessary for the trial Court to consider the issue of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and the wrongful dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendants. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the plaintiff had claimed to be the owner of the suit property in the suit and had tendered contradictory evidence when he entered the witness box. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that the applicants could have as well instituted a suit for claiming title over the suit property and the trial Court was not justified in deciding the issue of title. 4 It is submitted on behalf of the non- applicant that the trial Court has not decided the issue of title while decreeing the suit filed by the non- applicant. It is then submitted on behalf of the non- applicant that the Court considered the voluminous evidence on record to hold that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the property on 21.10.2000 and was forcibly dispossessed from the same by the defendants on the said date. It is submitted on behalf of the non-applicant that the findings recorded by the trial Court are pure findings of facts and cannot be interfered with in the civil revision application. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the judgment dated 19.08.2008, which is challenged in this civil revision application. By the second issue framed by the trial Court, the trial Court did not decide the question of title of the parties over the suit 5 property. In fact, in paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 19.08.2008, the trial Court observed that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it was only necessary to see whether at the time of dispossession, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property or not. The trial Court had observed that it was immaterial as to how the property came in possession of the plaintiff. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court observed that the evidence tendered by the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since the year 1994. The notice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff itself showed that the plaintiff was running a gas agency in the suit premises. The trial Court believed that on the pamphlet was published by the defendants for organising a march on 21.10.2000 for dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The Court observed that a panchnama was prepared after 6 removing the gas cylinders and the other articles from the shop of the plaintiff on 21.10.2000 and the said articles were handed over to the Tahsildar by the defendants. The trial Court observed that it was apparent from the evidence on record that since the year 1999, the defendants tried to evict the plaintiff from the suit property without following due procedure. The Court considered the numerous documents for holding that on the particular day of dispossession, the defendants took forcible possession of the suit tenement behind the back of the plaintiff without following due procedure. Since the trial Court had observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that it was not necessary to consider the issue of title of the parties in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and it was necessary to consider the question of possession of the plaintiff and the wrongful dispossession, the only submission made on behalf of the revisioners- applicants, is not accepted. 7 In the result, the civil revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE