- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The decree has been passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') putting the respondent in possession after he was illegally dispossessed by the defendants / respondents no.2 and 3. The unsuccessful defendants filed an appeal against the decree passed under Section 6 of the Act as is disclosed in para 17 of the grounds of revision. Having filed an appeal, the petitioners approached this Court through the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:- 1. If any person who has been dispossessed without his consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit recover the possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may beset up in such suit; 2. No suit under this section shall be brought; (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. 3. No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed; 4. Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recovery possession thereof. The limited purpose of Section 6 of the Act is to recover possession by any person who has been dispossessed without consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. The right is available notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such a suit. The person claiming re-possession after a decree is passed under Section 6 of the Act is not by way of an appeal against the decree nor a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution but by a separate action suing to establish title over property and to recover possession thereof in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act.
(2.) Learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Patiala has decreed the suit under Section 6 of the Act and restored possession to the petitioner. In execution, warrant of possession was issued against the judgment debtor / respondents no.1 to 3. However, that order was recalled by the trial judge as per order dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure P-14) for the reason that an appeal was pending against the decree. The order dated 06.03.2014 was passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Patiala without hearing the respondent. In the present petition, the judgment debtors have stated that they would withdraw the appeal but have come to this Court without withdrawing the appeal. In any case, admittedly an appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Act. The present revision petition is also not maintainable against the order passed under Section 6 of the Act which is summary in nature and has been passed after trial and hearing both the parties.
(3.) Besides, an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the revision petition. The ground taken is that the appeal was barred and the only remedy against the order passed under Section 6 of the Act and the decree drawn dated 07.12.2013 is a revision before this Court. Without going into the question of delay, this revision petition is declined for the reason that neither is there any error of jurisdiction nor legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2013 warranting interference nor any valid reason is made out to resist the decree. Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Warrant of possession mistakenly recalled is made operational, subject to independant remedy availed in a separate action in a civil court by the defendant to claim possession on the basis of title by due process of law.;