: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.719 OF 2008 Chotelala Phulchand Prajapati ... Applicant V/s. Vijayashankar Chunru Kanujiya ... Respondent Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Applicant Mr.S.S. Kudalkar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court by way of the present revision application contending that his suit has wrongly been dismissed by the city civil court. The applicant had filed a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act contending that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises between 12.9.2003 and 24.8.2003. He lodged a police complaint on 25.9.2003 to that effect. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there was material evidence on record to establish that the applicant was occupying the suit premises and that the defendant was merely given space to install an ironing table adjacent to the suit premises. It is submitted that the defendant had no right to enter the suit premises as the only right that he had was to use the ironing table. : 2 : 3. The Court has believed the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant which indicated that he was in possession of the suit premises prior to 12.9.2003. Complaints made by him to the concerned police station as well as the municipal corporation of the year 2001 and 2003 are produced before the Court. Besides this, the Court has considered the fact that the election card in the name of Chotelal Prajapati i.e. the plaintiff herein shows different address and not the address of the sit premises. Besides that, the ration card and the telephone bill which are produced also indicates the suit premises. However, it appears that the defendant has produced evidence on record which reveals that the election card issued with respect to his father was of 20.11.1994 had address of the suit premises. 4. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff has not been forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises. In my view, there is no need to interfere with this finding of fact arrived at in the revision application. 5. Civil revision application is dismissed.