C. R. No. 357 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 357 of 2012 Date of Decision : October 31, 2012 Sunil Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Ram Phal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : In this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), plaintiff Sunil Kumar has assailed judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short – the Act), inter alia for restoration of possession of the disputed shop in Village Palri Khurd. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he was tenant in possession of the disputed shop under the defendants and was running his business, for which he had also taken loan from Indian Bank. However, the C. R. No. 357 of 2012 2 defendants set the record of the plaintiff in the demised shop on fire and forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff therefrom and also removed his goods and cash amount. The plaintiff also lodged FIR dated 18.10.2006 against the defendants. The defendants denied the averments of the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff was tenant or in possession of the demised shop in any capacity. Defendant no.1, having purchased the disputed shop, is owner in possession thereof since its purchase vide sale deed dated 16.02.1996. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that besides testimony of the plaintiff-petitioner himself, he has also examined two witnesses from the neighbourhood, who have supported the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff has also examined Bank Manager regarding loan taken by the plaintiff from the bank for running business in shop at Village Palri Khurd. It was thus argued that the plaintiff's case is fully proved. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. C. R. No. 357 of 2012 3 Oral evidence of the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that he was tenant or otherwise in possession of the demised shop or he has been forcibly dispossessed therefrom by the defendants. The plaintiff has not produced on record any document whatsoever in support of his tenancy or possession. No rent note or rent receipt has either been produced allegedly because no rent receipt was issued by the landlords. However, in the absence of any document whatsoever, it has been rightly held by the court below that plaintiff's tenancy or possession over the demised shop is not proved. As regards bank loan, Bank Manager examined by the plaintiff has not stated that the loan amount was taken for running business in the disputed shop. Consequently, statement of Bank Manager does not link the loan amount with the disputed shop. In addition to the aforesaid, there are two other vital discrepancies in the case of the plaintiff. Firstly, the plaintiff has not even pleaded in the plaint the date on which he was allegedly dispossessed forcibly from the disputed shop by the defendants. Suit under Section 6 of the Act can be filed within six months of the dispossession. In the absence of plea in the plaint regarding date of dispossession, suit under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable as it cannot be said that it was filed within six months of the alleged dispossession. Secondly, the plaintiff has not even C. R. No. 357 of 2012 4 described the disputed shop in the plaint. He has simply alleged that the shop is situated in Village Palri Khurd. However, no boundaries or dimensions of the disputed shop have been mentioned in the plaint nor any site plan thereof has been annexed with the plaint. In the absence of description of the disputed shop, the suit could not be decreed because any such decree would be inexecutable. Counsel for the petitioner also stated that respondents/defendants have since been acquitted in the FIR lodged by the plaintiff-petitioner regarding the alleged incident of his forcible dispossession from the disputed shop. This circumstance also goes against the plaintiff-petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. October 31, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE