Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1271 (ORI)

Deeptibala Behura v. Nirupama Mahala

2017-11-07

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This Civil Misc. Petition arises as against the judgments, vide Annexures-3 & 5. 2. Short fact involved in the case is that the petitioner along with her mother as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.225/2011 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela for grant of relief of recovery of possession of the area described in the schedule therein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Defendant-O.P. on her appearance filed written statement denying the plaint averments. Trial court framed particular issues relating to maintainability along with other subjects. Trial being concluded, trial court dismissed the suit. Under the premises of no appeal available for the decree passed involving under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision on the file of Additional District Judge, Rourkela. The Civil Revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rourkela expressing no jurisdiction to decide such matter vested in it resulting the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 3. Challenging both the orders, Sri A.R.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act contended that filing of appeal involving such decree being restricted, the petitioner had no other option than to file the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Dash alleged that the trial court having failed to appreciate the grounds taken therein arrived at the wrong and illegal impugned order. Challenging the rejection of Revision on the ground of maintainability, Sri Dash apart from taking this Court to different provisions of Specific Relief Act and further taking reference of the decisions in Sanjay Kumar Pandey & others vrs. Gulbahar Sheikh & others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 664 and I.T.C. Ltd. vrs. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4806 submitted that for the decisions involved herein, the Revision at the instance of the petitioner was very much maintainable and the decision of the Additional District Judge is bad in law, which unless is interfered with will set a bad law. 4. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4806 submitted that for the decisions involved herein, the Revision at the instance of the petitioner was very much maintainable and the decision of the Additional District Judge is bad in law, which unless is interfered with will set a bad law. 4. Sri B.Nayak, learned counsel for the O.P. objecting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking this Court to the provision at Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act contended that there is no provision for appeal does not entitle the petitioner to go for Revision and following the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court, a Revision can only be entertained in exceptional situation. Sri Nayak thus urged that the case at hand does not fall within the exceptional category so as to invite a Revision before the District Judge challenging the order at Annexure-3. It is thus stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned order asking this Court to interfere with the same. 5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and considering that the Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision after observing that it has no revisional jurisdiction, in such matters this Court first proceed to decide as to whether Revision in such contingency is maintainable or not before going to consider the merit involved in the case. It is under the circumstance, this Court takes into account the provision contained in Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, which reads as hereunder :- “6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.— (1) 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. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) 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 be allowed. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) 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 be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.” Reading the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court finds, admittedly there is no provision for appeal as against the decree in such matters by the trial court. At this stage, this Court observes, the provision in Section 115 of C.P.C. enabling a party to challenge an order by way of Revision cannot have an application to a case involved a judgment and decree of a trial court. 6. Now coming to scan the judgment relied on by Sri Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into account paragraph-4 of the decision in Sanjay Kumar Pandey (supra) taken into account the dispute involved therein and the case at hand, this Court finds, there being no special circumstance or exceptional condition involving the case at hand not enabling the party to apply the provision for Revision. Similarly going through the decision in I.T.C. Ltd. (supra), though the Hon’ble apex Court observed that a party has no scope for appeal for the restriction therein but held that the remedy of unsuccessful party on such situation is to file a suit based on title and the remedy of filing a Revision is available only by way of exception. Revision in such matters is available only in the case of interference being made out within the well settled parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. 7. For the dispute involved herein, this Court does not find the present proceeding falls in the category of exceptional circumstance. Under the circumstance, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order thereby while refusing to entertain the Civil Misc. Petition confirms the order of the revisional court and holds that the Revision in the circumstance was not maintainable. It is open to the party to take resort to Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Under the circumstance, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order thereby while refusing to entertain the Civil Misc. Petition confirms the order of the revisional court and holds that the Revision in the circumstance was not maintainable. It is open to the party to take resort to Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. For the decisions of this Court that the Revision at the instance of the petitioner was not maintainable, the petitioner is directed to take the other remedies available under any other law for appropriate relief involving the issue therein. 8. The Civil Misc. Petition fails but however in the circumstances. No cost.