JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.: This is the defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1995 of the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1990 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (III), Shimla. 2. The subject-matter of dispute between the parties is the shop situate in Khalini. This shop has been specifically shown and described in the plaint and is being hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute. 3. Briefly stated, the facts as are disclosed in the plaint are these. Defendant No.4 Raja Hitender Sain (respondent No.2 in the present appeal) is the owner of the shop in dispute. It was let out by him to one Lakhu Ram, the husband of the plaintiff Smt Savitri, on a monthly rental of Rs.300/-. After the death of the said Lakhu Ram, the tenancy qua the shop in dispute came to be inherited by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 to 3 in connivance with defendant No.4, on 31.8.1986, took forcible possession of the shop in dispute after breaking open die lock. A report regarding mis occurrence was made to the police. However, instead of registering a case against defendants 1 to 3, the police registered a case under section 448, Indian Penal Code against Tilak Raj, the son of the plaintiff. Since the defendants 1 to 3 failed and refused to handover the possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff, a suit for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, came to be filed by the plaintiff on 28.11.1986. 4. The defendants 1 to 3, while resisting the suit, averred that they have been inducted as sub-tenants qua the shop in dispute by the plaintiff herself with the consent of the owner defendant No.4, on payment of rent of Rs.200/-per month. It was further pleaded that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the connivance of the defendant No.4. The defendants 1 to 3 also pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit and that the suit had not, been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Objections as to the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court were also raised. 5. DefendantNo.4 filed a separate written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was never in occupation of the shop in dispute. Objections as to the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court were also raised. 5. DefendantNo.4 filed a separate written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was never in occupation of the shop in dispute. She had in fact ceased to occupy the same. A petition for eviction of the plaintiff on the ground that she has ceased to occupy the shop was filed against her and the matter was pending in appeal. It was further averred that the plaintiff had herself sublet the shop in dispute in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and that the present suit has been filed to frustrate the eviction petition filed against the plaintiff. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the disputed premises on 31.8.1986 by defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 4 ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the disputed premises ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 7. Relief. 7. The learned trial Court answered issues No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issues No.3 to 6 in the negative. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for possession of the shop in. dispute. The learned District Judge on 6.7.1995, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 3 and affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues. 8. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff as to maintainability of the present appeal. It was contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the shop in dispute under Section 6 of the specific Relief Act, 1963, and that sub-section (3) of the said section bars the filing of an appeal against any order or decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 6. 9. It was contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the shop in dispute under Section 6 of the specific Relief Act, 1963, and that sub-section (3) of the said section bars the filing of an appeal against any order or decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 6. 9. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads:- "Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property-(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought - (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suit to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof." 10. A bare reading of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 6, quoted above, shows that no appeal shall lie against any order or decree that may be passed in a suit instituted under Section 6(1). Therefore, it follows that there can be no second appeal. 11. In view of the specific bar contained under Sub-Section (3) of Section 6, Specific Relief Act, 1963, the present appeal is not maintainable. In fact, even the appeal before the first appellate Court was also not maintainable. 12. As a result, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs Quantified at Rs.1100/-.