JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This revision under Section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 6, Meerut rejecting the application paper No. 24-C of the plaintiff revisionist to convert his appeal into a revision. 2. The plaintiff revisionist had filed Original Suit No. 27 of 2010 (Amit Bansal v. Deeraj Sachdeva) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2011. Against the said judgment and order the plaintiff revisionist preferred Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2011 which was within time. 3. The plaintiff revisionist realizing that Section 6(3) of the Act bars the appeal, applied for conversion of appeal into a revision which stands rejected. 4. Heard Sri Abhitabh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionist and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the defendant respondent. 5. The application paper No. 24-C which has been rejected is for amendment of the appeal. The amendment to the pleadings is permissible only under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC but the memo of appeal would not fall within the meaning of pleadings in view of Order 6 Rule 1 CPC which provides for the plaint and the written statement only to be part of the pleadings. Therefore, the above application cannot be treated as an application for amendment rather essentially an application for conversion of appeal into revision under Section 151 CPC. 6. The Apex Court in Reliance Water Supply of India (P) Limited v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 2083 , has ruled that the High Court can convert an appeal into a revision when the Court whose order is appealed against has illegally exercised its jurisdiction. 7. On the aforesaid principal the appellate Court below would also be authorized to permit conversion of appeal in to revision. 8. In Bahori v. Vidya Ram, AIR 1978 All 299 , this Court while dealing a similar problem relating to the conversion of revision into appeal above has opined that though there is no specific provision for conversion of appeal into revision or vice-versa but the Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC may permit such conversion in the interest of justice. The power in this regard is undoubtedly discretionary in nature and has to be exercised only in proper cases, if the interest of justice so requires. It further lays down that there is nothing like a period of limitation for making an application for conversion of an appeal into a revision or vice-versa. 9. The aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in Umaradeen v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar and others, 2007(10) ADJ 586 . It reiterates that the Court has discretion in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC to permit conversion of revision into an appeal. 10. In view of the above decisions one thing is clear and certain that the Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction has full authority of law and discretion to covert an appeal into a revision or vice-versa provided interest of justice so demands. 11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the judgment, order and decree which is sought to be challenged is one passed under Section 6 of the Act against which there is no remedy of appeal rather the remedy of appeal is specifically barred as Section 6 (3) of the Act specifically provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section. Therefore, the remedy which may be available to the party aggrieved is by way of a revision or by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is also not in dispute that the appeal which was preferred by the plaintiff revisionist was within time and the revision if preferred would have been within time on the said date. 13. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by declining to convert the appeal into a revision. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 4.4.2013 is set aside and the revision is allowed with the direction to the Court below to treat the above appeal as a revision and to proceed to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously with liberty to consider the maintainability of the revision on its own merit. ——————