1 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.174/2004 LRs of Bheru Lal Vs. Puran Mal & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 15.2.2008 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vinay Jain, for the respondents. **** By this petition under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, a challenge is given to the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Rajsamand. In brief facts of the case are that a suit as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was preferred by the plaintiff- petitioner to claim possession over the disputed property, said to be struck of from possession of the plaintiff on 30.6.1992. The trial court on basis of the pleadings available framed four issues including the issue relating to relief. On basis of the evidence available the issue No.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiff, and it was specifically held that the plaintiff failed to establish that tress-pass alleged and taking over possession of the land in dispute by defendant on 30.6.1992. The trial court also held that there was no evidence available on record to establish that the defendant wanted to raise any construction illegally on any land said to be tress-passed. The issue No.3 relating to 2 jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit was decided against the defendant- respondent. While assailing validity of the judgment and decree impugned the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, which amply proves that up to 30.6.1992 the land in question was under possession of the tenant of plaintiff and the respondent dispossessed him illegally. I have gone through the judgment impugned and the entire record. The findings given by the trial court are based on sound appreciation of evidence and whatever material available on record is taken into consideration. In revisional jurisdiction this Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence. I have examined the record and by no reason the findings arrived can be said to be perverse, capricious, arbitrary or against settled principles of law, thus, the same is not required to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction of this Court acquired by Section 115 CPC. The revision petition, therefore, deserves to be rejected. An apprehension is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a consequent to rejection of this revision petition the plaintiff shall be remedy less. The apprehension is absolutely ill-founded, as it is 3 well settled that the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are summary in nature, limited to finding out question of possession within a period of six months of institution of suit ignoring other questions including the question of title. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of success, right to recover possession of the property remains intact. For the reasons whatever stated above this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Jgoyal