K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Panposh in a suit under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act ('act' for short ). The plaintiff is the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case in short is that in the year 1973 she acquired schedule 'b' land of the plaint measuring 65' X 40' out of plot No. 533/7 (1) of mouza-Mahulpali within Rourkela town with a house standing thereon from one Narasingh Sahu. Since then she is in possession thereof by making improvements and has installed a flour mill. Defendant 1 (opposite party 1) is in possession of the adjacent land on the eastern side bearing plot No. 533/8 having his house thereon. Between the 30th Oct. and Ist Nov. 1979, defendant 1 in connivance with defendants 2 and 3 encroached upon 27' X 21' of land out of plot No. 533/7 (1) described in greater detail in schedule 'a' of the plaint and constructed a structure thereon without having any right to do so. Therefore, in instituting the suit under S. 6 of the Act, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession in respect of schedule 'a' land of the plaint after eviction of the defendants therefrom and for permanent injunction. ( 3 ) THE case of defendant 1 is that schedule 'a' land of the plaint forms part of plot No. 533/8 which he is in possession since 1958. He has acquired title in respect thereof by adverse possession. Therefore, neither the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for nor can he be evicted therefrom. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsif held that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was in possession of schedule 'a' land of the plaint and so he declined to grant the reliefs prayed for by her. ( 5 ) TWO points arise for consideration :- (1) Whether the plaintiff has been able to establish by adducing evidence that she was in possession of schedule 'a' land of the plaint prior to the alleged dispossession by defendant 1 ? (2) Whether the civil revision is does not operate as a bar to the institution of maintainable under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? ( 6 ) MR. (2) Whether the civil revision is does not operate as a bar to the institution of maintainable under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? ( 6 ) MR. S. K. Dey appearing for the plaintiff urged that this is pure and simple case of boundary dispute and if a survey knowing commissioner will be deputed to demarcate plot No. 533/7 (1) from plot No. 533/8, the dispute will be solved. Mr. P. K. Misra, on the other hand contended that this is not a simple case of boundary dispute which can be settled by deputing a survey knowing commissioner to demarcate the boundaries of the plaintiff and defendant 1. Since the suit was under S. 6 of the Act, onus was on the plaintiff to establish her possession in respect of schedule 'a' land of the plaint. ( 7 ) THE contention of Mr. Dey is untenable for the reason that it is not a simple case of boundary dispute. As a matter of fact, the land involved and described in greater detail in schedule 'a' of the plaint is quite sizeable measuring 27' X 21' in respect of which there are claim and counter-claim in the plaint and the written statement respectively, Questions of possession and dispossession are also involved. If it was a simple case of boundary dispute, the plaintiff would have taken out a survey knowing commissioner during the trial of the suit. But this course was not adopted. Assuming that it is a simple case of boundary dispute and a survey knowing commissioner is deputed to measure the plots, even then the dispute between the parties will not be solved unless the question of possession is gone into. I am, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Dey and hold that it is not a simple case of boundary dispute. ( 8 ) THE case is covered by a recent decision of this Court reported in (1984) 1 Orissa LR 560 (Smt. Sobhabati @ Suva Sahu v. Lakshmi Chand ). It was held that the object behind S. 6 of the Act is to discourage persons taking law into their own hands and is based and founded on public policy. It is a summary remedy available to the person in possession of immovable property when he is dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law. It was held that the object behind S. 6 of the Act is to discourage persons taking law into their own hands and is based and founded on public policy. It is a summary remedy available to the person in possession of immovable property when he is dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law. A suit under S. 6 of the Act is not maintainable against the State and after expiry of the period of six months from the date of dispossession. It does not operate as a bar to the institution of a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. ( 9 ) A glimpse into the oral and documentary evidence will be determinative of the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the learned Court below on possession. It is undisputed that plot No. 533, which includes the lands claimed by the plaintiff and defendant 1, belongs to the State and the tenant in respect thereof is Rourkela Steel Plant. It is possible that both of them are encroachers. But in this suit it is necessary to go into the question of title. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses have been examined. Narasingh Sahu, from whom the plaintiff had purchased plot No. 533/7 (1) was not examined. Similarly, on the side of defendant 1, two witnesses were examined. Ext. 1 is a preliminary order under S. 144 of the Cr. P. C. passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 4-11-1979. The plot number has not been mentioned in the order and so the subject-matter of the proceeding is not relatable to schedule 'a' land of the plaint. Ext. 2 is a notice for payment of holding tax. There is no description of the plot number in the notice and so it is also not relatable to schedule 'a' land of the plaint. Ext. 3 is a notice for collection and assessment of penalty under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ('o. P. L. E. Act' for short) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Panposh. In this notice also there is no mention of the plot number relatable to the suit land. Ext. 4 is a rent receipt in which there is no reference to the plot number. Ext. 4 and 6 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ('o. P. L. E. Act' for short) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Panposh. In this notice also there is no mention of the plot number relatable to the suit land. Ext. 4 is a rent receipt in which there is no reference to the plot number. Ext. B is a notice to defendant 1 under the provisions of the O. P. L. E. Act in respect of plot No. 533/8. Ext. C is the certified copy of the orders passed in the encroachment case and Ext. D is a petition by defendant 1 to record plot No. 533/8 in his name. The learned Munsif has discussed in detail the oral evidence and has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish her possession in respect of schedule 'a' land of the plaint. It was not shown as to how the finding was against the weight of evidence and perverse. Having considered the broad features of the case and the evidence, both oral and documentary, it is not possible to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to possession of Schedule 'a' land of the plaint. I would accordingly agree with the finding recorded by the learned Munsif that the plaintiff failed to establish her possession in respect thereof. ( 10 ) MR. P. K. Misra, strenuously urged that the High Court should not interfere in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction and disturb the decision of the learned Munsif under S. 6 of the Act, particularly when parties have an effective remedy by way of a suit for declaration of title and possession which is the normal and permanent remedy. In the case of Smt. Sovabati, (AIR 1984 Orissa 171) (supra), this Court held that exercise of jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code being purely discretionary, interference with a decision under S. 6 of the Act, which is not perverse or without jurisdiction or which does not occasion miscarriage of justice, is unwarranted. In AIR 1973 SC 76 Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, explaining the scope of S. 115 of the Code, Hedge, J. speaking for the Court held as follows :-"in our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. In AIR 1973 SC 76 Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, explaining the scope of S. 115 of the Code, Hedge, J. speaking for the Court held as follows :-"in our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law. But one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. . . . . . . "in (1979) 48 Cut LT 442, Nrusingha Mangal v. Damodar Sahu, this Court held :-". . . . . . THERE cannot be any doubt that the jurisdiction and power of interference of the High Court in a Civil Revision under S. 115, Civil P. C. is not only very limited, but the same is also restricted. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Jaffar Shaik Mahmood v. Mohd. Pasha Hakkani Sabib, AIR 1975 SC 794 , the High Court has power to see whether there is any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below or whether there is any such manifest error of procedure committed by the said Court which has affected the ultimate decision, resulting in gross injustice. The High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence in exercise of its revisional power and differ from the findings of fact. If a subordinate Court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute, it may decide it rightly or wrongly. Whether the question be one of law or fact, that would not bring the case within the ambit of S. 115, Civil P. C. It is only when the error of law or fact has relation to the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court to try the dispute that the provisions of S. 115, Civil P. C. would be attracted. Whether the question be one of law or fact, that would not bring the case within the ambit of S. 115, Civil P. C. It is only when the error of law or fact has relation to the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court to try the dispute that the provisions of S. 115, Civil P. C. would be attracted. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid principle, I hold in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the learned Munsif having acted in exercise of jurisdiction vested in him under law and the finding recorded by him being neither perverse nor having occasioned failure of justice, the impugned judgement and decree do not warrant interference in exercise of discretionary revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. ( 12 ) IN the result, in view of the aforesaid findings, the civil revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee at Rs. 75/ -. Revision dismissed. .