JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Tonk on the application made by the plaintiff respondent u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. Mst. Ulfatunissa Begam wife of Jahir Ali Khan had approached the court u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of the possession of House No. 57 in Ward No. 4. 3. The defendant, now the petitioner, had denied the allegation and had come up with the plea that he had purchased the house in question by registered sale-deed for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from one Sajid Ali. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Tonk had passed an order under sub-clause (iv) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for handing over the possession of Haveli No. 57 (Old)/House No. 54 (new) in ward No. 4. 4. The suit was filed on 25.5.1977 against the forcible dispossession alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on 16.4.1977. 5. On 27.2.1978, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved to incorporate the house No. 54 instead of 57 as pleaded in the plaint, for the reason that as per the latest voters list, this house has been shown to be as 54 i.e. the plaintiff respondent wanted the substitution of the number of house No. 57 to house No. 54; that substitution was allowed. 6. The petitioner defendant had also moved an application for amendment of the written statement to show that he had purchased the property by registered sale-deed on 15.12.1976 from Sakhawat Ali, Sajid Ali and Majid Ali and to place on record the registered sale-deed dated 15.12.1976 on the record even though in the original written statement it was pleaded earlier that he was put in possession by the said owners in view of the agreement to sell. This amendment moved by the petitioner defendant on 16.8.1991 was ultimately allowed by the High Court as per record. 7. The plaintiff had produced Ex. 15 the voters list of the house in question of the year 1975 wherein her name has been mentioned at Sr. No. 152 to be the resident of House No. 57 of Ward No. 4. Similarly in Ex. 7. The plaintiff had produced Ex. 15 the voters list of the house in question of the year 1975 wherein her name has been mentioned at Sr. No. 152 to be the resident of House No. 57 of Ward No. 4. Similarly in Ex. 16, voters list of the year 1971, it is mentioned that she had been the resident of house No. 57 at Sr. No. 148. In both the voters lists Sajid Ali, so-called vendor of the house has been shown to be resident of House No. 59. 8. Sale-deed dated 15.12.1976 has also been exhibited in original, where the house which is said to have been sold is mentioned as house No. 59 in ward No. 4. Map of the house had also been attached along with the sale deed. 9. From the pleadings it becomes clear that Sajid Ali was resident of House No. 59 and the claim for which the suit had been filed was House No. 57 later on changed to House No. 54. In para 37 of the judgment, it has been found that the plaintiff respondent was living in House No. 57. 10. Even though it is settled law that the interference in revision is to made in very exceptional circumstances and in extreme cases in the orders passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as has been held in the case of Bhojraj Krishnarao and another v. Sheshrao Diwakarrao & Ors., AIR 1949 Nagpur 126. Similarly it was held in Smt. Sobhabati v. Lakshmi Chand and others, AIR 1984 Orissa 171 that the High Court would not interfere in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 in the order passed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the remedy lies in regular suit for declaration of title and possession. So was laid down in the case of M/s Industrial & Mining Equipment Co. Pvt. v. N.L. Kanodia and others, AIR 1986 Delhi 36 and in Padartha Amat and another v. Siba Sahu, AIR 1993 Orissa 92. 11. In Abdul Rahiman v. Nalakath Muhammed Haji, AIR 1997 Kerala 23, it was held that the remedy u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act provided summary cheap and useful remedy to one dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. 12. 11. In Abdul Rahiman v. Nalakath Muhammed Haji, AIR 1997 Kerala 23, it was held that the remedy u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act provided summary cheap and useful remedy to one dispossessed of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. 12. From the above said authorities it is clear that the remedy available u/s 6 is to give minimum relief to the person who have been illegally dispossessed without authority of law. No appeal has been provided under the statute against the order passed by the competent authority. 13. Per contra, counsel for the appellant relies on Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and others v. K.S. Narayana Iyer, AIR 1965 Madras 122 wherein it was held that even though the alternative remedy by way of suit is available to the defendant, in the interest of justice petition by him in revision,should be entertained. 14. In the case of Ram Chandra v. Bhori Devi & Ors. 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 90, this High court had held that the revision against order dismissing objections to execution of decree and if the dismissal and the objections are based on conjectures and without taking support from evidence, oral and documentary etc. in that case revision is to be allowed and so was the case in Gobind Ram Jamna Dass v. Mst. Mewa, AIR 1953 Pepsu 188, wherein it was held that Section 9 itself shuts out the remedy by way of appeal or review. If the intention of the legislature was to shut out a remedy by way of revision also, it could have been similarly and specifically mentioned so but the legislature has not done so and, therefore, where the trial court had dismissed the suit filed by the landlord wrongly holding that he was not entitled to sue when his tenant is dispossessed, the plaintiff is deprived of his right to relief under Section 9, the order amounts to a failure on the part of the Court to exercise jurisdiction which it ought to have exercised. 15. From the foregoing submissions and the facts mentioned above, it is true that the revision as such may not be maintainable as to reappraise the evidence etc. 15. From the foregoing submissions and the facts mentioned above, it is true that the revision as such may not be maintainable as to reappraise the evidence etc. Both the parties are entitled to prove their title in the court below if any of the party to such application u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act is aggrieved against the orders passed by the jurisdictional authority. But in the present case, as has been mentioned above, the plaintiff had filed a suit for House No. 57 which was substituted as House No. 54 i.e. the plaintiff as per the voters list was submitting that she has been disposed from House No. 54 even though she had filed the suit for House No. 57. The petitioner respondent has produced the registered sale-deed having been executed by Sajid Ali and others for House No. 59 there is virtually no finding in this regard to the effect whether the plaintiff had any connection so far the House No. 59 is concerned. 16. The court below had relied on the pleadings of the plaintiff for House No. 57 or 54. It cannot be ruled out that the plaintiff may be wanting to dislodge the defendant petitioner from house No. 59 in the garb of House No. 57 or 54. The petitioner has only produced the document Ex. 1 of the sale-deed of House No. 59 and as such it can be safely said that even though no interference is called for so far the order impugned is concerned, but the order impugned shall be applicable to House No. 54 which house was substituted for House No. 57 and not to any other house, however, the parties shall always be at liberty to approach the civil court for establishing their title. 17. In such circumstances, the revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******