1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2002. APPLICANT : (Original Defendant no.6) Dilip S/o Ishwar Warghane, aged about 32 years, Occupation-cultivator, r/o Pirawa, Tah. Bhiwapur, Distt. Nagpur. -VERSUS- NON- : APPLICANTS Ishwar S/o Lakharam Warghane (Died) aged about 72 years, (Ori.Plff) 1) Prabhu S/o Balaji Warghane, aged about 36 yrs., 2) Panjab S/o Ishwar Warghane, aged about 55 yrs., 3) Dada S/o Ishwar Warghane, aged about 50 yrs., 4) Bapurao S/o Ishwar Warghane, aged about 45 years, 5) Bhaurao S/o Ishwar Warghane, aged about 37 yrs., 6) Babi Panjab Warghane, aged about 50 yrs., 7) Kalawati Bapurao Warghane, aged about 40 yrs., 8) Lata Dilip Warghane, aged about 26 yrs., Defts. no.1 to 5 Occ-Agriculturist Defts. no.6 to 8 Occ- Hoiusehold work All r/o Pirawa, Tah-Bhiwapur, Distt. Nagpur. Shri S. B. Ninawe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Markandewar Advocate for the non-applicants. CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 28th FEBRUARY 2011. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This revision application challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umred on 18-2-2002 in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1997. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has obtained the possession of the suit land from him illegally on 16-10-1996 and the suit filed on 29-1-1997 was, therefore, within the period of limitation of six months. The Trial Court has further recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved that he was illegally dispossessed by the defendant on 16-10-1996. With these findings, the decree for restoration of the possession of the suit property has been passed which is the subject matter of this revision application. 2. Mr. Ninawe, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that in the instant suit the pleading is that the plaintiff has been dispossessed on 16-10-1996, whereas the plaintiff in his own evidence stated in cross examination that on 18-10-1996, he was illegally dispossessed from the suit land. He has further pointed out the portion from the cross examination of the plaintiff himself that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property till 1997. It is, therefore, his submission that the trial Court has committed an error in ignoring these admissions. 3. Mr. Markandewar, the Learned Counsel has urged relying upon the decision of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1934 Allahabad 541, Badri Das and others Vs. Mt. Dhanni and another and AIR 1953 Assam 158, Abdul Bari V. Asrab Ali that the revision challenging the judgment and decree passed 3 by the trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, is not maintainable and the remedy is to file a suit for title and possession. 4. Perusal of the plaint shows that the alleged dispossession of the property of the plaintiff was on 16-10-1996. In cross examination the date of dispossession deposed by the plaintiff is 18-10-1996. Further, admission is given that till 1997, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The suit is not based upon dispossession in the year 1997, but it is based upon the dispossession on 16-10-1996. In view of these vital admissions given by the plaintiff, the trial Court has committed error in recording finding that the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed from the suit land on 16-10-1996. In the absence of any evidence on record, the Trial Court was not justified in recording the finding merely on the basis of the pleadings made in the plaint. The finding of the trial Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel Mr. Markandewar are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that the adequacy of evidence cannot be gone into in the revisional jurisdiction or the finding of fact cannot be restored. Here in the present case, we are not concerned with the adequacy of the evidence, but we are concerned with total lack of evidence in support of the pleadings. In view of this, it cannot be said that the trial Court was right in recording such finding. The findings cannot, therefore, be sustained. 6. For the reasons stated above, the revision application is allowed. 4 7. The Judgment and decree dated 18-2-2002 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umred in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. JUDGE //MULEY//