JUDGMENT :- Petitioner herein, who was Original Defendant No.2, is the only legal heir of Defendant No.1 who has suffered a decree of delivery of possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 1991 under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act dated 20th July, 1998, and has approached this Court by filing present Revision Application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, as an appeal therefrom does not lie. Facts, in brief, are as follows :- 2. The Plaintiff filed a suit praying that plaintiff be put in vacant possession. The suit contains a title described as follows :- "Suit for mandatory injunction and possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963." (quoted from page 24 of the paper-book of Revision Application). It seems that as a relief consequential thereto, the plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to dismantle and remove the compound wall, pillars, gate etc., constructed by the defendants. 3. In the plaint, an averment is made as to how possession of the plaintiff is antecedent and how plaintiff was in possession on 1st October, 1990, and how on that date, plaintiff was dispossessed, and plaintiff's claim for possession. A verments contained in the plaint about plaintiff's prior possession and dispossession read as follows :- "4. That, there was a fencing to the said plot made by the plaintiff and also the plaintiff had planted trees in the same. That getting annoyed by successive defeat the defendant nos.1 and 2 collected material and on 1-10-90 trespassed in the suit plot forcibly and started construction thereon illegally and without permission of the Municipal Council, Ramtek. The plaintiff immediately reported the matter to Police Station, Ramtek and to Nagar Parishad, Ramtek, on the very day and requested to stop the construction, but to no effect. The defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff of the suit plot or to make any construction thereon........" (quoted from page 26 of the Paper-book of Revision Application). "5. The cause of action for this suit arose on 1-10-90 when the defendants trespassed and dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit plot and started construction work thereon the is within limitation for suit u/s.6 of the Specific Relief Act." (quoted from page 13 of the Paper Book of Revision Application). 4. Plaintiff's suit was opposed by the defendants. "5. The cause of action for this suit arose on 1-10-90 when the defendants trespassed and dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit plot and started construction work thereon the is within limitation for suit u/s.6 of the Specific Relief Act." (quoted from page 13 of the Paper Book of Revision Application). 4. Plaintiff's suit was opposed by the defendants. Defendants claimed that they did not dispossess the plaintiff, however, the defendants admitted that they have constructed the compound wall, gate etc. They denied that their act was without any right. According to the defendants, plaintiff was in possession of separate piece of land occupied by him in 1979, and his hut with Mangalori tiles was on the said location, where plaintiff actually lives and that, therefore, there is no question of dispossession from suit land and the defendants, therefore, claimed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The suit has been decreed, against which present Revision Application under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is filed. 6. At final hearing, this Court found that the defendants were unrepresented. Moreover, relief of mandatory injunction has been prayed in the suit. Therefore, the Court felt that prima facie, this relief fell outside the scope of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, moreover Trial Court had ordered suit to be tried as regular suit. Therefore, this Court appointed learned Advocate Mr. L. A. Mohta as Amicus Curiae to address the Court on the question of law involved in the matter. 7. Heard learned Advocate Mr. C. N. Deshpande for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. L. A. Mohta, Amicus Curiae. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. C. N. Deshpande urged that :- (a) it is a matter of record that the suit was ordered to be tried as regular suit and, hence it ceases to be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (b) Trial Court framed Issues in which Issue No.1 is relating to title, which reads as follows :- "1. Whether plaintiff proves his title to the suit property which is more particularly described in plaint para No.1?" and as the Trial Court has dealt with the issue of title, which is not the scheme of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (c) The judgment does not contain a finding that on a particular date the plaintiff was dispossessed. (c) The judgment does not contain a finding that on a particular date the plaintiff was dispossessed. (d) Trial Court framed Issue No.5, namely:- "5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for restoration of suit property alongwith relief of mandatory injunction as prayed? which enquiry and relief falls outside the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, suit was, for all purposes, not liable to be considered to be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act." In this background, according to learned Advocate Mr. C. N. Despande, the decree under revision gets vitiated, and by setting aside the same, the case needs to be remanded for hearing' and disposal according to law. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande relied upon a reported Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1996(1) Civil L.J. 107). 10. This Court further finds that Trial Court had passed following Order below Exh.1:- “O R D E R The case is tried in regular manner as other relief of mandatory injunction is also claimed in the suit." Consequent thereto, the learned Trial Court framed various issues relating to illegal construction and need of a direction to demolish it. It is seen that neither of the parties have taken any exception to the mode of trial adopted by the Court. 11. The finding of the Trial Court as to plaintiff's possession and dispossession by the defendants can be seen at the end of the discussion on Issue No.2, which reads as follows :- "9. ........There is oral evidence of witnesses of plaintiff about possession of the land by plaintiff. Previous litigation came to an end by the order of appellate court in the year 1989. Now on the suit land there is admittedly possession of defendants. The suit for possession filed by defendant was dismissed. Hence, it has become clear that first defendant took legal recourse against plaintiff. However, on failure of it he took forcible possession of the land from plaintiff. Hence I answered issue no.2 in affirmative." (Quoted from page 18 of the Paper-book of the Revision Application). 12. The defendant's plea in defence and argument is recorded in Para 7 by the Trial Judge which is dealt with in Para 13, which reads as follows :- "13. Hence I answered issue no.2 in affirmative." (Quoted from page 18 of the Paper-book of the Revision Application). 12. The defendant's plea in defence and argument is recorded in Para 7 by the Trial Judge which is dealt with in Para 13, which reads as follows :- "13. As to issue No.7: The learned Advocate for defendant's has submitted that the suit land is a govt. land. Hence govt. is a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff cannot claim possession of land from defendants. It is also decided by the Court in previous proceeding. On perusal of the copy of Judgment it appears that in that proceeding the court held the is of government. However, that suit is u/s.6 of Specific Relief Act. Hence, the possession can be recovered from a person who illegally dispossessed plaintiff. From evidence on record it is admitted fact that the defendants had taken illegal possession of the suit land from plaintiff. Hence plaintiff can file suit against defendants only without making govt. as party to the suit. ......." (quoted from page 21 of the Paper-book of the Revision Application). 13. Thus, the issue as to prior possession and dispossession is duly answered by Court below. 14. This Court finds some substance in the last point argued by learned Advocate that an issue of title is not required to be adjudicated upon in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The scheme of law is that notwithstanding the "title" which maybe setup as a defence in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is required to find out that within six months from the date of suit, the plaintiff was in possession and that he was dispossessed otherwise than in course of law. The specially framed scheme of Section 6 protects both the parties i.e., first the person who has been ousted otherwise than in course of law by forcible dispossession, and second, at the same time, it protects right, title and interest of the defendant if he has, which be can agitate by taking recourse to proper legal remedy. 15. The specially framed scheme of Section 6 protects both the parties i.e., first the person who has been ousted otherwise than in course of law by forcible dispossession, and second, at the same time, it protects right, title and interest of the defendant if he has, which be can agitate by taking recourse to proper legal remedy. 15. In view that since the plaintiff had framed the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the defendants were led and were bound to be so led to a belief that there would be-no enquiry and finding as to the issue of title of defendants in such a suit. Framing an issue of title itself was uncalled for, since the title as a defence being unavailable in a suit under Section 6 of the Act, and such a claim or title is reserved in favour of such defendant for being available in future suit for possession by such defendant. 16. The enquiry as to title done by the Trial Court is, on the face of it, an exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it, and is an unnecessary exercise. Finding thereon is, thus, beyond the scope of enquiry contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. This position of law requires that this Court should strike down the finding on issue relating to title. 17. This Court will have to find out as to what is the effect of the prayer for mandatory injunction on the nature of suit. The background, in which the mandatory injunction was prayed, is that the plaintiff's dispossession at the hands of defendants occurred during the process of construction of wall and gate etc., or said construction activity was used for the act of dispossession which was otherwise than in the course of law. Plaintiff could have been put in possession even without ordering demolition by issuing a mandatory injunction. Moreover, since an enquiry into title was not liable to be conducted, any need to hold an enquiry as to whether mandatory injunction was liable to be issued becomes equally unnecessary. An eventuality that the defendants could set up a rightful title and it may be found that raising a compound wall is an act done by the defendants to protect right, title and interest or possession within the specified bounds, including for the purpose of preventing any further encroachment cannot be ruled out. An eventuality that the defendants could set up a rightful title and it may be found that raising a compound wall is an act done by the defendants to protect right, title and interest or possession within the specified bounds, including for the purpose of preventing any further encroachment cannot be ruled out. This contingency can arise where since defendants' own title can be set up and be made a foundation in a substantive suit by the defendant. In such eventuality, the defendants may be found justified in putting up the compound wall. In this situation, it would be wholly unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the decree for demolition of structure so raised could be passed by issue of mandatory injunction. On facts, the Trial Court has declined to issue mandatory injunction, and the fact that issue was framed and enquired does not vitiate the trial on the ground that full and formal enquiry was held by Trial Court, where summary trial was needed. 18. Moreover, when the suit was based upon claim for possession, and dispossession being done otherwise than in course of law, i.e., by forcible act of the defendants, the Trial Court could have and ought to have restricted its enquiry to the question of restoration of possession by disregarding other prayers or striking off other prayers as to mandatory injunction. Even it would have been possible for the Court to call upon the plaintiff to elect the nature of proceedings and then to proceed with the enquiry which course is not adopted by learned Trial Court. 19. In view of the fact that in very specific and unambiguous terms, the plaintiff had claimed restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with a specific pleading that he was dispossessed otherwise than in course of la w, for all purposes it was a suit for summary enquiry, and the claim for mandatory injunction fell outside the scope of such a suit. Therefore, such additional prayer would not render plaintiff's suit to be a suit for possession based on title. The totality of the contents and dominant part of the plaint was and is liable to be considered. 20. In the case Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Therefore, such additional prayer would not render plaintiff's suit to be a suit for possession based on title. The totality of the contents and dominant part of the plaint was and is liable to be considered. 20. In the case Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh (supra), relied upon by learned Advocate for the petitioner, in a suit for possession based on title, the Trial Court had proceeded considering it to be a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Their Lordships of Supreme Court distinguished the nature of enquiry in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as compared to a regular suit for claiming delivery of possession on the basis of title and Their Lordship found that it was erroneous to adopt in a regular suit based on title the procedure under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. This Court finds that the Judgment relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Deshpande is besides the issue involved in the case on hand where situation is exactly contrary, since instead of trying the suit summarily, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the suit with a full-fledged enquiry. 21. This Court finds that if a Regular Civil Suit is tried summarily, rights of the parties to have a full trial are prejudiced. If a summary suit is tried with a full and final enquiry, no prejudice is caused, whatsoever, to the defendants. In fact, inconvenience and prejudice, if any, and if at all, is caused, it is to the plaintiff, who had proceeded in the longer route of full trial instead of a summary enquiry and the adjudication was thereby delayed. Thus, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice due to the full-fledged enquiry, which the defendants have suffered. 22. The attack on the judgment is due to fact that finding on title was recorded, suit being tried as regular suit and the issue relating to mandatory injunction. In regards to those aspects, this Court finds that framing of these issues was wholly uncalled for, and without warrant of scheme of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The said exercise by trial court is separable from the issue of plaintiff's dispossession otherwise than in the course of law which part of judgment is not shown to be worth interference. The said exercise by trial court is separable from the issue of plaintiff's dispossession otherwise than in the course of law which part of judgment is not shown to be worth interference. Therefore, relying upon Section 99 of Civil Procedure Code that the decree, which is otherwise correct, ought not be interfered due to technicalities which do not impair the process of justice. This Court, in the result, finds that impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference on account of framing of unnecessary issues and granting full hearing as a regular trial when Trial Court was not bound to do it. Unnecessary issues and findings thereon can always be struck off. 23. This Court, therefore, finds that finding recorded by Trial Court on the point of dispossession of plaintiff from suit property being otherwise than in the course of law is not shown to be perverse, is found legal and correct. 24. In the premises, this Court passes following order :- (a) The issue of title, i.e., Issue No.1, in impugned Judgment and a finding thereon incorporated in Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 are struck off and set aside. (b) Subject to direction contained in above sub-para (a), operative part of Judgment and decree under challenge is confirmed. (c) In the circumstances, Revision Application has no merit, and it is dismissed. Subject to Order Clause (a), the Rule is discharged with costs. Application dismissed.