JUDGMENT 1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.163 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam, in O.S.No.46 of 2000, which was one for recovery of possession. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, would run thus: (i) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, consciously and knowingly filed the suit O.S.No.46 of 2000 invoking section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, as against the defendants, for recovery of possession of the suit immovable property. (ii) The suit was resisted by the defendants, by filing the written statement. (iii) Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The manager of the first defendant one Saraswathi was examined as D.W.1 and the second defendant was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on the defendants' side. (iv) Ultimately the trial court dismissed the suit. Whereupon the plaintiff simply filed the regular appeal before the appellate Court, namely, Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, unmindful of the salient provisions contemplated under Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief Act itself relating to the bar for filing appeal. Unfortunately both the Courts below were not aware of the embargo contemplated as against the filing of appeal over the judgment rendered by the trial Court in summary suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Whereupon the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and the decree of the first appellate court, this second appeal has been focussed on various grounds and suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the decree of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, when the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal? (ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in declaring the plaintiff as a dispossessed person of the suit premises, when the evidence under DW4 and 5, clearly proves that he had vacated the premises on his own? (iii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, when the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession six months prior to the institution of suit?." 5. On hearing both sides, I would like to formulate the following substantial question of law: Whether the first appellate court was justified in entertaining the appeal as against the embargo contemplated under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 6. Heard both. 7. Advocates on both sides in unison would submit that the embargo for preferring the appeal as against the judgment rendered by the trial Court in summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, is mandatory and it cannot be taken as persuasive or directory. 8. In view of the above, the first appellate Court was wrong in entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. 9. However, the trial Court imposed cost while dismissing the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would implore and entreat that in the facts and circumstances of this case, such imposition of cost was not justified, for which, there was no serious objection from the other side. 10. Hence, I am of the considered view that since the plaintiff, de hors Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is entitled to file a separate suit and seek remedy, it is better not to mulct the plaintiff with cost at this stage. Accordingly, the cost imposed by the trial Court in favour of the defendant shall stand set aside. 11. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.