JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the revision petition and the order of the learned trial court impugned therein.This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2002 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 302/89.The suit has been filed by the plaintiff respondents under Section 6 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act, 1963').The learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submitted that sine qua non for grant of decree under Section 6 of the Act, 1963 is wholly missing in the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff respondents have not given out the date on which they were dispossessed from the suit property. Referring to the amended plaint, the learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submitted that as regards to the date of dispossession of the plaintiff respondents from the suit property therein the blanks are left.The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned trial court.Section 6 of the Act, 1963 provides that 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.Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 provides that no suit under this section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession.Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 provides that 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 is permissible.Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, 1963 provides that nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recovery possession thereof. 2. The question of title is relevant in a suit filed under Section 6 of the 5 Act, 1963. The object of this provision is to discourage the peoples from taking the law in their own hands, howsoever good their title may be. 2. The question of title is relevant in a suit filed under Section 6 of the 5 Act, 1963. The object of this provision is to discourage the peoples from taking the law in their own hands, howsoever good their title may be. It provides a remedy to a person who has been, without his consent, dispossessed of the immovable property otherwise than the due course of law, for recovery of possession without establishing the title. 3. The court has to record in such suit a categorical finding as to whether the suit is filed within six months from the date of dispossession. Until this essential ingredient is established to the satisfaction of the court, the suit under Section 6 of the Act, 1963 would not succeed. 4. In the amended plaint the plaintiffs have not given out the date on which they were dispossessed from the suit property. In para No. 5 of the plaint this material date of alleged dispossession from the suit property has been left blank. Similarly in para No. 6 of the plaint again this material date of alleged dispossession from the suit property has been left blank. In para No. 9 of the plaint again the date of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit property has been left blank. The matter does not end here but in para No. 12 of the plaint the plaintiffs left blank the date on which the cause of action accrued to them to file the suit.Maharajuddin (PW1), in his examination, has not given out the date on which the defendant petitioners have dispossessed the plaintiff respondents from the suit property. He further stated in the examination in chief, "KABJA KAB KIYA MUJHE PATA NAHI HAIN." In cross examination he stated, "YAHA MUJHE PATA NAHI KI VIVADIT MAKAAN KE HAMARE KHARIDNE KE KITNE DIN, MARINE VA SAAL BAAD PRATIVADI NE KABJAA KIYA." He further stated in the cross-examination, "YAHA KABJA KIYA ISKI TARIKH, MAHINA, SAAL KA BHI MUJHE PATA NAHI." Sarfuddin (PW2) has also not given out in the examination in chief the date on which the defendant petitioners have taken the possession of the suit property.Alimuddin (PW3) has also not given the date on which the defendant petitioners have taken the possession of the suit property. 5. 5. Thus in the presence of this evidence and the fact that in the amended plaint also these important facts have not been given by the plaintiff respondents, the learned trial court has committed serious illegality in exercising of its jurisdiction in decreeing the suit. It is true that in the original plaint the blanks were filled in but those alleged dates of dispossession are not proved by evidence. 6. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition succeeds and the serve is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 3.4.2002 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 302/1989 is quashed and set aside. The suit filed by plaintiff respondents under Section 6 of the Act, 1963 is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only).In view of this order, the stay application, filed along with this revision petition, also stands disposed of.Appeal Allowed - Decree Set Aside - Suit Dismissed. *******