- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24/10/2000 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Barmer, whereby, the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act') has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioners filed a suit on 3/10/1994 with the averments that a plot of land situated at Mohalla Dhani Surjan Saheb, Barmer was purchased by them on 8/8/1959 by registered sale deed from Kesrimal and others; permission for construction was obtained from the Municipal Board on 24/4/1966 and 28/3/1983 for which construction material was collected, however, the construction could not take place. On 17/6/1986 when the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 went to the plot, defendant nos. 1 to 4 were in the process of trespassing on the plot. When they were prevented, they started quarreling and, therefore, FIR was lodged on 21/6/1986 in which challan was filed by the police; on 4/1/1994 the accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine was imposed. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, defendants no. 1 to 4 came in possession of the plot and on 3/5/1990 the same was transferred to defendants no. 5 to 7, which fact came to the notice of the plaintiffs when Civil Original Suit No. 47/91 was filed in the court of Addl. District Judge, Barmer, wherein, in written statement reference to the sale deed was made. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the defendants no.5 to 7 illegally raised construction on the plot in question. After the decision of criminal proceedings, an application dated 14/1/1994 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for removing the trespassers and for possession of the plot under Section 456 Cr.P.C., on which order dated 20/1/1994 was passed for handing over of the possession, pursuant thereto on 28/1/1994 the possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff Nemi Chand.
(3.) On 2/2/1994, defendants no. 5 to 7 filed an application before the court indicating that the S.H.O., Barmer has forcibly taken possession of the plot from them and, therefore, the possession be handed over back to them. An application was also filed by the plaintiffs on 4/2/1994 for demolishing the construction raised by the defendants no. 5 to 7. Both the applications were decided on 9/2/1994, whereby, the direction to handover the possession to the plaintiffs was confirmed and it was held that the transfer in favour of defendants no. 5 to 7 was meaningless and they have no right on the plot in question and they were directed to remove the construction within seven days. It was indicated that against the order dated 20/1/1994 revision petition was filed, wherein, the execution of the order was stayed on 9/2/1994. It was then claimed in the plaint that since 28/1/1994 when the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs, they were in peaceful possession of the land in question, but the defendants without waiting for the outcome of the appeal and revision, on 2/4/1994 in absence of the plaintiffs forcibly took possession of the plot in question, which information was received by the plaintiffs on 3/4/1994, when again FIR was lodged under Section 448 and 379 IPC and challan was filed against the defendants. Based on the said averments, the possession of plot in question was sought.;