C.R. 2214 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 2214 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.10.2009 Bota Singh petitioner vs Mohinder Singh Present: Mr. GS Nagra, Advocate Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.S.BEDI,J. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act ( for short 'the Act') alleging that the defendant-respondent had dispossessed him and had refused to hand over the possession of the property on 16.8.1993, which had been forcibly occupied by him. The suit was instituted on 31.1.1994 but was dismissed in default on 23.2.2001. The plaintiff- petitioner had moved an application for restoration of the suit without filing an application for condonation of delay, after a period of more than five months i.e. on 30.7.2001. The application for restoration of the suit has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.11.2007 and by the learned Additional District Judge,Ambala vide order dated 23.1.2009. It is the order of dismissal of application for restoration passed by the courts below, which has been challenged in this revision petition before this court. Both the courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the suit for possession, filed u/s 6 of the Act does not deserve to be restored as the petitioner has failed to put forth a reasonable cause for non appearance on 23.2.2001 and that the restoration application had been C.R. 2214 of 2009 2 filed beyond the period of limitation. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order, passed by the courts below. Even otherwise, the purpose behind Section 6 of the Act is to compensate a person, who has been forcibly dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law. As per Section 6 (2)(a) of the Act, no suit u/s 6 is maintainable after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession. I have gone through the plaint of the petitioner, which does not specify even the date of dispossession. No ground is made out for restoration of the suit u/s 6 of the Act, which is a special provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had been forcibly dispossessed and his suit was based upon his title as well, his right to recover the specific immovable property u/s 5 of the Act be protected. He has argued that the plaintiff- petitioner, being the owner of the property in dispute, has got a legal right to recover the possession of the same and that the occupation of the specific immovable property by the defendant after dispossessing the plaintiff, gives a recurring cause of action to the plaintiff, as such, his right to file an ordinary suit for recovery as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act be protected. While dismissing this revision petition, it is observed that since the earlier suit for possession, filed by the plaintiff- petitioner, was u/s 6 of the Act, dismissal of the same in default will not debar the plaintiff- petitioner to file a fresh suit to recover the possession of the specific immovable property on the basis of his alleged title and the subsequent cause of action, if so advised. October 30 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE