1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.R.A. NO. 182/2007. Sachin s/o Digambarrao Deshmukh, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture, through General Power of Attorney, Shri Digambarrao s/o Bhaurao Dehmukh, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Shendurni, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Versus Suresh Kesharlal Jain Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Shendurni, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Shri P.R. Karpe h/f Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. Asha Rasal, Advocate for respodent. ............... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J Date : 4th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard finally. 2 The unsuccessful plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 69/1999 by judgment and order recorded by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jamner Dist. Jalgaon dated 27/08/2007, in a action u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act challenged in the Civil Revision Application. 3 Elaborate submissions were advanced by Mr. Karpe representing original plaintiff (Revision Applicant), he criticized order, by pointing the issues framed by learned judge though were within bracket in terms of 2 mandate of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, learned judge has elaborately discussed all other aspects, he was not called upon to adjudicate in the light of the issues which were required to be framed under Order 14 Rule 1 of C.P.C.. The learned counsel also took recourse to the factual matrix as to how the plaintiff Sachin who has staked claim subsequently, after death of Kamalabai dated 28/03/2001, could be eligible to prosecute proceeding, he being coming within terminology “any person through him”. 4 Though several aspects are addressed however, scope of revision in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, require the legality of the order needs only to be scanned. 5 In order to establish immediate dispossession preceding six months to filing suit dated 08/06/1999, the evidence of Digambar Deshmukh father of Sachin – the plaintiff is put forward. The other supporting evidence is of Bhila Supdu Pardeshi at Ex. 54. The learned judge has evaluated evidence of Digambar Deshmukh as well as evidence of Bhila Supdu Pardeshi and reached to the conclusion that they could not establish dis-possession of the deceased plaintiff Kamalabai on 13-01-1999. The learned judge found, Bhila Supdu Pardeshi could not indicate even four boundaries of the house or whether any material belonging to said Kamalabai could have been removed by landlord employing services of the tractor. 6 The landlord asserted, receiving possession from occupant on 28/07/1997. To impress it, there was evidence of the landlord Suresh at Ex. 59 and the attesting witness to the possession receipt Piyush at Ex. 3 83. Both these witnesses have in unequivocal terms indicated that possession of said premises was handed over by Devrao the tenant on 28/07/1997 and Devrao having expired on 01/11/1998, widow Kamalabai had indeed shifted to new premises. This position, to some extent has been accepted by Digambar in his evidence. Digambar also accepted that his son Sachin stayed for some time with Kamalabai at new premises. These details will certainly defuse claim and frustrate the claim of dispossession to stake restoration under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned judge elaborately discussed competence of Sachin to implead himself as plaintiff. However, I am not required to advert to the competence of said Sachin. 7 The learned counsel representing respondent / landlord took recourse to the judgment in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and others reported in (2004) 4 S.C.C. 664. To attack contentions raised by counsel for the revision applicant about scope of revision, he relied on observations of Apex court in para 4 re- produced here in below - “ A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the inquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six moths 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 4 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 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 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.” 8 The scope of revision is indicated by the Apex Court in the matter of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule & Others versus Maroti Hari Jadhav & others reported in AIR 1966 S.C. Page 153. It has been observed- “The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under section 115, correct errors of fact, however gross, they may be, even error of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly 5 invoked. Points of law may arise which are related to questions of jurisdiction.” 9. Considering these aspects in the matter, the scope of revision being limited, the findings recorded by learned judge in negativing contention of the plaintiff having dispossessed six months prior to the institution of the suit being not established, no interference is called for. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J) tsk/cra182/2007