SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-petitioner seeks to quash the decree and judgment dated 17. 10. 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sawai Madhopur whereby the suit instituted by him u/sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") was dismissed.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the petitioner on 21. 7. 1976 with the averments that the defendant-respondents dispossessed him without his consent and otherwise then in due course of law from the property in question and they were entitled to recover possession u/s. 6 of the Act. THE respondents submitted written statement stating therein that on 4. 5. 1976 the petitioner compromised the matter and executed `supurdginama' in favour of the respondents in respect of the said property. As many as six issues were framed by the trial Court. THE petitioner examined seven witnesses whereas seventeen witnesses were produced by the respondents. After bearing the arguments the trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner as indicated hereinabove. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before me by Mr. S. M. Ali and Mr. Ashok Mishra learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material on record. The object behind Sec. 6 of the Act is to discharge persons taking law into their own hands and is based and founded on public policy. It is a summary remedy available to a person in possession of immovable property when he is dispossessed otherwise then in due process of law. Section 6 does not operate as a bar to the institution of a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. Unfortunately in the instant case summary trial of the suit u/s. 6 of the Act took almost twenty years in its completion. While deciding issue No. 1 the learned trial Court appreciated the statements of the witnesses to adjudge the title over the property. In the concluding lines of the decision of issue No. 1 it has been observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove the ownership of disputed Haveli in his favour. The question of dispossession in the intervening night of 11/12. 7. 1976 has also been adjudicated upon simultaneously with question of title. In my considered opinion the learned trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in searching a base of title in a case u/s. 6 of the Act which begins with the word "notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. . . . . . . " During the course of arguments 1 was taken through the evidence and it was contended that I should re-appreciate it but while exercising the revisional jurisdiction I cannot re-appreciate the evidence.
(3.) NOW I proceed to discuss the authorities relied upon by Mr. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents. In Padartha Amat vs. Siba Sahu (1), it was held that "when the Legislature with its intelligence has deprived parties of a right of appeal against the order passed u/s. 6 of Specific Relief Act, the High Court while exercising its revisional power will not re-appreciate the evidence even though on appreciation of such evidence it may be possible to take a different view of the matter. " Sobhabati vs. Lakshmi Chand (2) was the case wherein it was indicated that High Court will not interfere u/s. 115 CPC if suit u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act is dismissed by the trial Court. Remedy lies in regular suit for declaration of title and possession. I have taken note of the broad features of the instant case with a view to judging if interference u/s. 115 CPC can be made when the parties have an effective remedy by way of suit for declaration of title and possession. ;