This is a petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Rule 34 of the Administration of Justice and Police in Naga Hills read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 30. 10. 82 passed by the learned Judical Magistrate of First Class at Dimapur in Title Suit No. 13 of 1981. 2. The opposite party herein as plaintiff filed a suit against the present petitioner under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was alleged that he was dispossessed from the land by the present petitioner, which has been denied. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court ordered eviction of the present petitioner from the suit land and restoration of possession of the land to the respondent. 4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party has urged that as no decree was prepared, the petition is not maintainable and this should be remitted back to the learned trial Court. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act wherein it is provided that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree shall be allowed ( underlining mine }. According to Mr. Goswami in view of the words 'order or decree' appearing in sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act, it is not necessary that decree should be prepared before any petition under Rule 34 of the Administration of Justice and Police Rules in Nagaland can be filed. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Goswami and accordingly I reject the contention of Mr. Deka. 5. From the records of the learned trial Court I find that the allegation of dispossession was in respect of Schedule 'B' land which is quoted below: "9 acres 7 lechas covered by Dag No. 8,9,11 of A. K. Patta No. 2 at Kachiram Gaon, Dimapur Mauza and P. S. Dimapur, Nagaland". On perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court I find that the order was passed in respect of Dag nof. 48, 49 of Pafta No. 11 and paitof Dag No. 91 of Patta No. 20. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court I find that the order was passed in respect of Dag nof. 48, 49 of Pafta No. 11 and paitof Dag No. 91 of Patta No. 20. Thus as there is a discrepancy between the description of the land given in Schedule annexed to the plaint and in the judgment and this Court had to examine record and it appears from the order dated 26. 10.81 that on the prayer of the plaintiff the plaint was allowed to be amended and a copy of the amended plaint was also furnished. But this amended plaint is net available on record. Mr. Deka has shown me copies of two petitions for amendment of plaint But en perusal of these petitions I find that these were filed in respect of two different matters. That apart from the impugned judgment I find that the learned trial Court noted that the amendment was in respect of "typing or clerical mistake, English measurement and local measurement such as 'acres' and 'bighas' were mixed up ; and for better understanding as described only in acres of the suit land of the amended petition and this amendment was accepted by my learned predecessor and counsel on behalf of the defendant". The copy of the amended plaint is not available on record. In view of these factors I am unable to come to any finding regarding the identification of the disputed land. 6- Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Jamabandi Fxts. 1 and 2 and sale deeds Exts. 3 and 4 in support of his contention that from these docum­ents more particularly the sale deeds it is not clear which land was purchased by the plaintiff. Of course Mr. Goswami fairly states that in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the question of title is immaterial, though the learned trial Court has also gone into the matter. I need not express any opinion on this point and I leave it to learned trial Court to decide this matter. 7. Of course Mr. Goswami fairly states that in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the question of title is immaterial, though the learned trial Court has also gone into the matter. I need not express any opinion on this point and I leave it to learned trial Court to decide this matter. 7. In view of the fact that materials available before this Court are not sufficient to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned judgment was actually passed in respect of the land which was alleged to be occupied by the defendant by evicting the plaintiff this Court had no other alternative but to remand the case to the learned trial Court to decide it according to law. In doing so the learned trial Court shall place the copy of the amended plaint and amended written statement, if any, on record, Learned counsel for the parties agree that it is not necessary to adduce further evidence to decide the question of possession as required under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. However, it is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that if the amended copy of the plaint or written statement, if any, are not available with the trial Court the parties shall furnish copies thereof. 8. From what has been stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.82 passed in T. S. 13/81 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur is set aside and the case is remanded back for an appropriate decision by the learned Court according to law. Before passing the final order the learned Court shall hear the parties after giving notice. 9. As the matter is pending since 1981 and since it relates to dispossession of land, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of 4 (four) months from the receipt of the record. Parties to bear their own costs.