: 1 : 5527-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2011 Narendra Havaldar Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. M/s. New India Construction Co. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b R.U. Singh for the petitioners Mr. P.S. Dani, S. Nagvedaria and Mr. S.C. Mehta i/b Mehta & Co. for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioners herein filed S.C. Suit No.305 of 2009 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai praying for restoration of the land more particularly set out in prayer clause (a). In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners have also sought mandatory order seeking reconstruction of the suit premises i.e. stable No. 17 consisting of 33 khilas suitate on CTS No.162 of village Mogra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai. Alternate prayer is sought so as to allow the petitioners plaintiffs to reconstruct the said suit premises. It is well settled that in a : 2 : 5527-11-wp=.sxw suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff cannot ask reliefs other than the restoration of the possession of property in question. Hence, it is hereby clarified that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai while conducting the trial of this suit will not consider the prayer clauses (b) and (c) as they could not have been sought in the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners took out notice of motion no.2 of 2009. In the said motion, the petitioners had asked for diverse reliefs of injunction including relief of appointment of Receiver etc. In the said motion, the petitioners have sought mandatory order directing the defendants to reconstruct the suit premises. By prayer clause (b) alternate prayer was sought seeking appointment to reconstruct the suit premises. By prayer clause (c), Receiver was sought and an additional prayer through Receiver were sought. The petitioners had also sought an order of injunction restraining defendants from carrying out activities. The commissioner was requested to go and visit the suit site. This motion was opposed by the respondents. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has by order dated 4th February, 2010 dismissed the said motion, against which this petition has been filed. : 3 : 5527-11-wp=.sxw 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were dispossessed from the land in question on 21st January, 2009. This being a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it was necessary for the petitioners to make out a prima-facie case in the notice of motion that petitioners were in possession of the suit land on 21st January, 2009. In support of the aforesaid position, the petitioners had relied upon a Deed of Assignment, which is said to be executed in favour of the petitioners by the persons who claimed to be the tenants in respect of the suit land. That Deed of Assignment is of the year 1958. In addition to above conveyance of the year 1996 obtained by defendants in respect of the suit land as also the other lands and in the said conveyance is relied. In the said conveyance, a list of persons who were found to be in possession was annexed. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the suit came to be filed in the Court of Small Causes Court against the landlord and in the year 2006 an order of injunction was issued against the landlord from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have not been able to place before the Court : 4 : 5527-11-wp=.sxw documentary evidence of a recent date namely in or about December, 2008 or January, 2009 closer to the date of alleged dispossession to say that they are in possession of the land. It is noted that the learned Judge has observed that area of 1 khila is about 20 sq.ft. Petitioners claim to be in possession of 33 khilas which will mean that the petitioners were in possession of 660 sq.ft. The documents which are placed before the Court do not specifically make out the case of petitioners. 6. There is some discussion in the impugned order whereby the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has come to the conclusion that the description of the suit property is not properly mentioned. This proposition was contradicted by learned advocate Mr. Singh. Even if the stand of the petitioners is accepted that the description of the land is properly mentioned even then in the absence of appropriate documents to show that the petitioners were in possession of the suit land in or about January, 2009, the claim of the petitioners that they were in possession and that they were dispossessed, cannot be accepted. In my view, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has applied his mind in the proper direction and I am not inclined to take different view than the one which is taken by the learned Judge. The result of the aforesaid view is that this : 5 : 5527-11-wp=.sxw petition is required to be dismissed. After the aforesaid order is passed learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this being the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it would be proper for this Court to direct the learned Judge of the City Civil Court to hear and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Request is fair. Hence, petitions is dismissed by passing following order. ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed. (ii) Learned Judge of the City Civil Court who is attending to the aforesaid S.C. Suit No.305 of 2009 is hereby directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st December, 2012. (iii) It is also clarified that the learned Judge at the time of trial shall not decide prayer clauses (b) and (c) as the same could not have been sought being the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)