JUDGMENT S.N. Phukan, C J.—The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-5-1991 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (Court No. 2), Shimla in Case No. 60/1 of 1987. By the impugned judgment the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. Admittedly the plaintiff-respondent was in occupation of the premises in dispute as tenant on payment of monthly rent. According to the plaintiff he was dispossessed forcibly from the possession of the suit premises in the first week of April 1987. The dispute between the parties is regarding the manner in which the plaintiff was dispossessed as according to plaintiff he was in occupation of the suit premises till April 1987 and he was dispossessed thereafter as stated above by the defendants by force. Whereas, according to the defendants-petitioners, the plaintiff sold away his tenancy right to one Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother for due consideration and also handed over the possession to said Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother in November 1986. Defendant No 2 who was at the relevant time in the village, knowing about the alleged illegal action of the plaintiff, came to Shimla and found said Vinod Kumar Sood in possession of the premises in dispute. It has further been alleged by the defendants that Shri Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother asked defendant No 2 to create tenancy of the premises in their favour which was refused. Thereafter due to the intervention of some persons Shri Vinod Kumar Sood and his brother delivered the possession of the suit premises to the defendants in the third week of March 1987 and thereafter they are in possession of the suit premises. 3. The learned trial Court by a reasoned judgment and after considering the entire evidence on record came to the clear finding that the plaintiff-respondent was dispossessed as alleged in April 1987 by the defendants-petitioners without taking due course of law and as the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed, the suit was decreed 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention urged on behalf of the respondent is that present revision petition is not maintainable against the impugned judgment passed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the defendants-petitioners have alternative remedy by filing a suit on the basis of the title. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention urged on behalf of the respondent is that present revision petition is not maintainable against the impugned judgment passed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the defendants-petitioners have alternative remedy by filing a suit on the basis of the title. 6. Section 6 of the above Act, inter alia, provides that if a person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he may file a suit for recovery of possession notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit but such a suit has to be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. This section also provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in such suit nor any petition for review shall be allowed. It further provides that nothing in the said section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. 7. The object of this section is to discourage people from taking law into their own hands however good their title may be and also restrain illegal dispossession This section also provides special summary and speedy remedy for recovery of possession without establishing the title and for that purpose no provision is made to file an appeal. However, a person having a better title can file a separate suit and judgment/order passed in a suit under section 6 shall not be a bar. 8. The corresponding section was section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the question whether a revision petition lies against any order passed under section 9 of the old Act came up for decision before various High Courts I may refer to some of the decisions referred to at the bar. 9. In Abdul Bari v. Asrab Ali9 AIR 1953 Assam 158, it was held that interference in revision against an order passed under section 9 has been generally declined even though the said section does not exclude the remedy altogether It was further held that whether interference in a particular case by exercising revisional powers is justified or not would depend on the circumstances of each cape as rights of the aggrieved party may be so clear that it may not be desirable to force him to institute another suit. According to the learned Single Judge where no exceptional circumstances are brought out and the only contention raised is that finding on a question of fact is not based on adequate evidence or is erroneous, interference would not be justified as it would be going against the spirit of section 9 and in effect would be to convert a revision petition into an appeal which is prohibited by the section. 10. The Madras High Court in N. L. Corporation Ltd. and others v. K. S. Narayana Iyer, AIR 1965 Mad 122, also considered this question and held that normally where alternative remedy by way of suit is available, the court shall not interfere in revision but in the interest of justice revisional powers can be exercised In that case the court exercised the re visional power in the interest of justice considering the facts of the case. 11. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shree Onama Glass Works Limited v Shri Ram Harak Panday and others, AIR 1966 MP 282, held that interference in revision in cases under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, namely, when the suit is dismissed without trial, under misapprehensions of the scope of section 9 or where the balance of convenience in a case is not in favour of driving the plaintiff to a regular suit. An interference in revision in a particular case would depend upon the circumstances of that case. 12. Madras High Court in Chinna Pillaiv. N. Govindaswami Naidu and another, AIR 1969 Mad 191, held that a revision petition against a judgment under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable if there is a jurisdictional error. 13. Orissa High Court in Smt Sobhabati v. Lakshmi Chand and others, AIR 1984 Orissa 171, held that against a judgment passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act remedy lies by way of regular suit and relief should not be granted in a revision petition under section 115, C. P. C, which is discretionary power of the court. With great regard, I am unable to accept the ratio laid down in this case as under certain circumstances revisional power can be exercised depending on the facts of each case. 14. With great regard, I am unable to accept the ratio laid down in this case as under certain circumstances revisional power can be exercised depending on the facts of each case. 14. Keeping in view the provision of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and also the object of this section and after considering decisions referred to above I am of the opinion that against a judgment parsed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act normally this court should not exercise its revisicnal powers which is discretionary in nature as the aggrieved party has got alternative remedy by way of filing a separate suit on the basis of title. More over, section 6 provides speedy remedy to a person who has been dispossessed by another by taking law into his own hands. But revisional powers can be exercised in exceptional circumstances and on the facts of each case and, while exercising such powers, the court should not convert the petition into an appeal. I may add here some exceptional circumstances when the court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction For example when a suit is dismissed without trial, under misapprehension of the scope of the said section 6 or where the balance of convenience in a case is not in favour of driving the party to a regular suit or where case of the revision petitioner is clear and normally interference should be restricted to cases where there has been no proper trial. These examples shall not be exhaustive as each case depends on the facts of that case. 15. In the case in hand, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the plaintiff sold his possessory right to Vinod Kumar Sood and, therefore, plaintiff has no right to keep possession It has also been urged that plaintiff took a different stand in the present suit which was filed in the year 1987 and, therefore, the judgment is erroneous. It has also been urged that Vinod Kumar Sood handed over the possession peacefully due to intervention of third party to the defendants long before filing of the present suit. Another grievance of the petitioners-defendants is that their petition for adducing additional evidence was rejected. 16. If the points urged on behalf of the petitioners-defendants are considered, it will amount to re-appreciation of evidence on record. Another grievance of the petitioners-defendants is that their petition for adducing additional evidence was rejected. 16. If the points urged on behalf of the petitioners-defendants are considered, it will amount to re-appreciation of evidence on record. In other words, I shall be exercising appellate jurisdiction which is barred under section 6 of the Act. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants. Petitioners-defendants have got alternative remedy of filing a suit on the basis of title and, therefore, all these points may be raised if suit is tiled However, I direct that if any suit is filed, the trial Court shall ignore the findings in the impugned judgment and shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law 17. I have perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record and I do not find that this is an exceptional case or there is any jurisdictional error and, therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed which I hereby do. In the result the petition is dismissed. Stay order dated 1-8-1991 stands vacated. Petition dismissed.