ORDER S. Rajan, Member Non-applicant, Ghisasa, on 18-8-62 filed a suit against the applicants, Bhagirath and Ors. in the civil Court u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act. On 8-3-63 the civil Court returned the plaint to Ghisasa for presenting it in the proper Court and accordingly he presented it in the Court of the Tahsildar on 29-4-63 u/s 202 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code). Ghisasa also filed an application for interim possession on 9-5-63 u/s 202(4) of the Code. This application u/s 202(4) was allowed by the Tahsildar by his order dated 5-6-63. Bhagirath and Ors. went up in revision to the Commissioner who rejected the application for revision. Bhagirath and Ors. have now filed an application for revision in the Board against the order of the Commissioner. In the plaint Ghisasa has written that he was dispossessed of the land on 24-4-1962. The application u/s 202(2) of the Code was made on 29-4-63. Thus the period between the date of dispossession and the date of submission of the application u/s 202(2) of the Code is more than one year. According to Section 202(4) of the Code the Tahsildar can put the person who has applied under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 202 of the Code in interim possession only if the period between the date of dispossession and the date of submission of the application under Sub-section (I) or (2) of Section 202 is within six months. In this case the period between the date of dispossession and the date of submission of the application u/s 202(2) is more than six months. The Tahsildar has justified the legality of his order granting interim possession u/s 14 of the Limitation Act and the learned Commissioner has also supported the Tahsildar in this respect. In Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act there is the phrase "against the same party for the same relief". The words "for the same relief" occurring in the above quotation are very important. Thus not only should the parties be the same in the two Courts but it is also necessary that in both the Courts application is made for the same relief. The words "for the same relief" occurring in the above quotation are very important. Thus not only should the parties be the same in the two Courts but it is also necessary that in both the Courts application is made for the same relief. Thus if the relief asked for in the correct Court is quite different from the relief asked in the wrong Court then Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not come into operation. In the present case in the plaint filed before the civil Court on 18-8-62 there is no application for interim possession. For instance in the plaint the relief asked for is as follows- The relief asked for in the Court of the Tahsildar on 9-5-63 was the grant of interim possession u/s 202(4) of the Code. The civil Court was not asked to give interim possession till the decision of the suit. Thus Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the present case. There is one other point also. In the Code it is nowhere laid down that an application is necessary for the grant of interim possession u/s 202(4) of the Code. The words used in Sub-section (4) of Section 202 are "if he finds that he was ejected or dispossessed". Thus even if there is no application for the grant of interim possession the Tahsildar can pass an order granting interim possession if he finds that the applicant under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 202 was ejected or dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application under Sub-section (1) or (2) and such an order of the Tahsildar would be quite legal. The words "if he finds that he was ejected or dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application under Sub-section (1) or (2)" occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 202 is only a provision of law for the guidance of the Tahsildar as it tells the Tahsildar that if such conditions exist he can pass such and such order. The question of a period of limitation for the application for interim possession does not arise at all as the statute does not contemplate even such an application. I have already shown that even without an application an order for interim possession could be legally passed. The question of a period of limitation for the application for interim possession does not arise at all as the statute does not contemplate even such an application. I have already shown that even without an application an order for interim possession could be legally passed. The period of six months has nothing to do whatsoever with the date before which an application for interim possession may be made. For instance the application for interim possession may be made at any time during the pendency of the case and the Tahsildar may grant interim possession if the "six months" rule must have been followed. Thus in my opinion there is no limitation for presenting an application for interim possession u/s 202(4). Thus it is clear that the "six months" rule must be followed in all cases of grant of interim possession u/s 202(4) of the Code. In the present case the period between the date of dispossession and the date of application u/s 202(2) of the Code is more than six months and so the Tahsildar's order granting interim possession is an illegal one. The orders of the Tahsildar u/s 202(4) and of the learned Commissioner are set aside. The application for revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed