Honble YAMIN, J.–This is a revision against the judgment of learned Civil Judge (JD) Sardarsahar in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Admittedly no appeal lies against an order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section. Hence revision has been preferred. (2). The facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff petitioner took a room on rent from defendant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month on 26.10.83. The rent was being paid regularly and receipts were being obtained. The rent was paid upto 26.12.95. The premises was in possession of the plaintiff and he was Keeping furniture as well as other articles in the premises. In the night of 7.12.95 defendant landlord broke the back wall of the shop and opened a door. The main gate of the shop was having lock of the plaintiff. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sardarsahar by the father of plaintiff. All other luggage lying in the shop was removed by the defendant in the night of 8.3.96. Again report was lodged at Police Station Sardarsahar. Thus the possession of the premises was taken by the defendant. When the defendant was asked to hand over possession, he refused, hence the civil suit was filed. (3). The defendant submitted his written statement refuting all the allegations and stated that the plaintiff and his son Manoj Kumar were doing business in Calcutta for last 8 or 10 years. They were not living in Sardarsahar. It was further av- erred that the building had become dilapidated and Municipal Board Sardarsahar had issued a notice to demolish it within 24 hours. It was further averred that during the night of 27th, 28th and 29th of July, 1996 there were excessive rains in Sardarsahar resulting into death of six persons. On the same day officers of Municipal Board Sardarsahar inspected the site and ordered that the building be demolished. Some of the portions of the building were demolished on 10.10.95. Since there were excessive rains, Mangilal plaintiff took out his luggage from the premises concerned and took to his home and handed over key to the defendant. The room was vacated on 25.12.96 by the plaintiff and since he had at ulterior motive, he filed the suit. Some of the portions of the building were demolished on 10.10.95. Since there were excessive rains, Mangilal plaintiff took out his luggage from the premises concerned and took to his home and handed over key to the defendant. The room was vacated on 25.12.96 by the plaintiff and since he had at ulterior motive, he filed the suit. Learned trial Judge framed relevant issues, recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had voluntarily surrendered the keys to the defendant, therefore, the suit was dismissed. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the report to the police was lodged and the police after investigation has submitted challan, the plaintiff could not have filed a false civil suit. He submitted that this Court has wide powers to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in revision under Section 115 CPC. (5). So far as scope of revision in such cases is concerned, it is very limited and remedy is discretionary one and revision lies in extreme cases. (Bhojraj Krishnarao vs. Sheshrao Diwakarrao & Ors.(1)). The law further is that it should be confined to cases of very exceptional nature. (Rajai Singh and others vs. Suraj Bali (2), Ajodhiya Prasad Belihar Sao and another vs. Ghasiram Premsai Nai (3) and Rajai Singh and others vs. Suraj Bali (4). In absence of jurisdiction error the finding of the lower court cannot be disturbed by the High Court. (Pundurang Dhondi Chougule and others vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others (5). The finding as to the position in suit under Section 6 will not be disturbed unless it is perverse. Smt. Kausalya @ Shakuntala Devi vs. Padmanav Padhee and others (6). (6). I have seen the finding of the learned trial Judge in view of above cited law. The contention of the learned counsel that since the police submitted challan against the defendant, the plaintiff would not have filed a false civil suit, is not tena- ble because the scope of both of them are different. The police submits challan on the basis of papers and statements which are subject to cross examination by the other party. Here in the suit the parties led evidence by examining themselves and their witnesses who were cross examined and the finding of the court is that the plaintiff had voluntarily handed over keys to the defendant. The police submits challan on the basis of papers and statements which are subject to cross examination by the other party. Here in the suit the parties led evidence by examining themselves and their witnesses who were cross examined and the finding of the court is that the plaintiff had voluntarily handed over keys to the defendant. The finding does not appear to be perverse on any account. I am of the view that this revision petition is not worth admission and is liable to be dismissed. (7). Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.