This is a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 20.9,89 of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 63 of 1987 by which the learned Munsiff decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession over the suit land and directed the defendants including the petitioner-defendant No. 3 to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within one month. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the aforesaid impugned judgment of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi are that the plaintiffs filed a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for getting khas possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs' case was that defendant No. 12 purchased the suit land from Azizur Rahman on 28.2.79 by a registered sale deed and thereafter sold the same to his wife defendant No 11 on 19.7.78 and the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 advanced an amount of Rs. 2.000/- to defendant No. 11 for purchase of the said land and the defendant No. 11 executed a Biinama and gave delivery of the possession of the suit land to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. But thereafter on 6.11.86 the defendant Nos. 1 to 10 forcibly trespassed into the suit land assaulted the plaintiffs and took forceful possession of the land and on 8.11.86 defendant No. 11 executed a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is on these facts as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff prayed for recovery of the suit land. 3. Out of the 12 defendants, only defendant No. 3 contested the suit and in the written statement pleaded that the defendant No. 12 Surul AH executed Bainama in favour of the defendant No. 3 and one Amir Khursa for sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant No. 3 and took a sum of Rs. 15.000/-as an advance money towards part of the consideration of Rs. 49.000/- and on 5.11.86 delivery of possession of the suit land was given to the defendant No. 3 and thereafter the defendant No. 3 erected, a dwelling house and has been in possession of the suit land since then, 4. 15.000/-as an advance money towards part of the consideration of Rs. 49.000/- and on 5.11.86 delivery of possession of the suit land was given to the defendant No. 3 and thereafter the defendant No. 3 erected, a dwelling house and has been in possession of the suit land since then, 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led and by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1989 the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs vendor had right, title and interest in the suit land and the said vendor had possession over the suit land within 6 (six) months from the date of dispossession and thereafter decreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit land and directed the defendants to give possession of the suit Ian ' to the plaintiffs within one month from the date of passing of the order. 5. Mr, Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court cannot go into question of title of the plaintiff and can only determine the question as to whether the plaintiff was dispossessed of the suit property without his consent otherwise than by due course of law and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was dispossessed without his consent and without due process of law the Court can restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in case the suit was filed within 6 months from the date of such dispossession. But in the present case, Mr. Dhar submits, the Court has not given its finding as to whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed without the consent and without due process of law and decreed the suit for khas possession on the reasoning that the plaintiffs' vendor had right, title and interest in the suit land and was in possession of the suit land within 6 (six) months from the date of dispos­session. Mr. Dhar accordingly prays that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Mr. Dhar accordingly prays that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Osmani, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs' case in the plaint was that the plaintiffs were in possession in the suit land pursuant to a Bainama executed by the defen­dant No. 11 and on 6.11.86 the plaintiffs were dispossessed without" their consent otherwise than by due process of law by defendant Nos. 1 to 10 and there is sufficient evidence in support of his aforesaid case in the plaint and the Court while decreeing the suit had only incidently gone into the question to title of the vendor. 7. On a reading of the impugned judgment of the learned Munsiff, it is difficult to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Osmani. For granting the relief under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has to come to a finding as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were thereafter dispossessed without the consent otherwise than by due process of law and such dispossession has taken place within a period of 6 months from the date of filing the suit. In the present case, the learned Munsiff has come to a finding in the impugned judgment that the vendor of the plaintiffs was in possession of the suit land within 6 months from the date of dispossession but has not come to any finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were dispossessed from the suit land without then consent otherwise than by due process of law within 6 months from the date of filing of the suit. As a matter of fact, this error has crept into the impugned judgment of the learned Munsiff because of the fact that while framing the issues, the Court framed issues No. 4 and 6 with regard to the right, title, interest and possession of the vendor of the plaintiffs and not with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. In my opinion in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the right, title, interest and possession of the vendor of the plaintiffs are not at all relevant, though they may be relevant for the purpose of decreeing a suit for decla­ration of title. In my opinion in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the right, title, interest and possession of the vendor of the plaintiffs are not at all relevant, though they may be relevant for the purpose of decreeing a suit for decla­ration of title. Since the present Case is admittedly one under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the question relating to the right, title and interest of the vendor of the plaintiff was not required to be decided by the trial Court an j the only question that was required to be decided by the trial Court was as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession in respect of the suit laud and were dispossessed from the suit land without their consent and otherwise than by due process of law within 6 months from the date of filing the suit. Since the trial Court has riot decided the aforesaid question, the impugned judgment dated 20.9.89 of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned Mun­siff shall re-frame the issues and thereafter decide the matter afresh keeping in view the provisions of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and dispose of the matter afresh within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall appear before the learned Munsiff on the 1st August, 1994 to enable the learned Munsiff to fix up the date for further hearing. The civil revision is allowed. No costs.