JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been brought under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment dated 16.06.2017 delivered in Title Appeal No.03 of 2016 by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Khowai. 3. On scrutiny of the records, it appears that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by evicting the defendant-appellant from the suit land and removing all obstructions therefrom. By the judgment dated 31.08.2016, the said suit being Title Suit No.04 of 2013 was decreed holding that the defendant-appellant is liable to be evicted from the suit land. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 31.08.2016, the defendant-appellant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Khowai being Title Appeal No.03 of 2016. 5. The first appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment dated 31.08.2016. In the judgment dated 16.06.2017 as delivered in Title Appeal No.03 of 2016, the first appellate court has recorded the grounds raised in the appeal as under : “The trial Court also not considered the case of the appellant wherein the appellant categorically stated that he purchased the suit land orally and paid Rs.23,000/- in the year 1998 and since then the appellant was in possession of the suit land by producing seasonal crops, vegetable etc. and therefore question of recovery of possession taking a flimsy ground of dispossession in the year 2012 has got no manner of application. Even the suit of the present respondents was not filed within the period of limitation. Further the appellant stated it that the tribal persons in whose names the khatian No.142 and 368 are finally published not made party by the respondents in their original suit and therefore the suit of the respondents is liable to be dismissed as provisions of Section 186 of the TLR and LR Act. Apart from this the so-called unregistered deed as stated by Respondent No.1 was not submitted and therefore the present respondents failed to prove it that they are in possession over the suit land.” But those grounds are held without substance on appreciation of the evidence. 6. Apart from this the so-called unregistered deed as stated by Respondent No.1 was not submitted and therefore the present respondents failed to prove it that they are in possession over the suit land.” But those grounds are held without substance on appreciation of the evidence. 6. By means of this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC the said judgment dated 16.06.2017 has been challenged. 7. On scrutiny of the records in the threshold and on hearing the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this court is of the view that the first appeal being Title Appeal No.03 of 2016 as filed in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Khowai was entertained contrary to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. 8. There is no dispute that the suit was instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, the said first appeal was supposed to be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. But that was not done, rather on hearing the first appeal on merit, the said judgment dated 16.06.2017 was delivered affirming the judgment of the trial court. 9. In view of the prohibition as provided under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the said first appeal was incompetent and hence the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 respectively delivered in Title Appeal No.03 of 2016 are interfered with and set aside. As no appeal lies against the judgment delivered in the suit instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, however, by way of revision, the judgment dated 31.08.2016 could have been challenged. There were grounds for such challenge. The defendant-appellant did not file the revisional application to question the judgment dated 31.08.2016 delivered in Title Suit No.04 of 2013. 10. Hence, this second appeal stands dismissed. However, the defendant-appellant shall remain with liberty to file the revision, if permitted by law. Prepare the decree accordingly. Thereafter, send down the LCRs.