JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This petition has been filed assailing judgment and order, dated 21st September, 2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chopal (Camp at Jubbal), District Shimla, in Case No. 45/1 of 2016, titled as Hardyal Khimta versus Devender Thakur (for short 'impugned judgment') whereby suit of plaintiff-respondent has been decreed, at the stage of framing of issues, exercising powers under Order XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), by adjudicating the suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), directing the defendants-petitioners to remove the locks from the property rented out to the plaintiff-respondent. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and relevant provisions of law. 3. Section 6 of the Act reads as under : 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. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. 4. As evident from bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act, it provides instant remedy to the possessor of the premises for restoration of possession in case he is dispossessed by anyone, including the owner of the property, without adopting the due process of law. The public policy propagated under Section 6 of the Act is to discourage persons from taking the law in their own hands and entering, by force, upon the property in the possession of other persons. 5. The public policy propagated under Section 6 of the Act is to discourage persons from taking the law in their own hands and entering, by force, upon the property in the possession of other persons. 5. The main object of this provision is to establish the rule of law by directing the person, interested to have the possession of a property in possession of another person, to approach the competent Court of law instead of allowing a person to be his own judge. The proper course for a party, out of possession, is to file a suit for ejectment and recover possession and if, instead of adopting due course of law, he forcibly dispossesses another person in possession, the law requires restoration of status quo ante and the fact that the dispossessor, the lawful owner, who can successfully maintain an ejectment action, is immaterial for this purpose. As observed by the apex Court in case titled as Mohanlal and others versus The State of Punjab and others, reported in 1970 Rent Control Journal 95, “under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. This is the essence of law.” 6. Suit proceedings under Section 6 of the Act are summary in nature and, thus, no appeal has been provided against the decree under Section 6 of the Act. A limited remedy to the unsuccessful party in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is a revision under Section 115 CPC, but, only by way of exception. Owner or the person, entitled for recovery of possession of the property, has an independent remedy to file a suit for recovery on the basis of his title or entitlement for possession, but he has no right to dispossess a person by taking law in his own hands. 7. In case titled as M.C. Chockalingam and others versus V. Manickavasagam and others, reported in (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 48, the apex Court has held as under: “13. …............ All that Section 6 (new) of the Specific Relief Act provides is that a person, even if he is a landlord, cannot take the land into his own hands and forcibly evict a tenant after expiry of the lease. …............ All that Section 6 (new) of the Specific Relief Act provides is that a person, even if he is a landlord, cannot take the land into his own hands and forcibly evict a tenant after expiry of the lease. This Section has relevance only to the wrongful act of a person, even if it be by the landlord, in forcibly recovering possession of the property without recourse to law. Section 6 frowns upon forcible dispossession without recourse to law but does not at the same time declare that the possession of the evicted person is a lawful possession. The question of lawful possession does not enter the issue at that stage. All that the Court is then required to consider is whether an evicted person has been wrongfully dispossessed and he has come to the Court within six months of the dispossession. The various civil rights between the landlord and the tenant will have to be adjudicated upon finally in a regular civil suit if filed. ......” 8. Dealing with the scope and nature of proceedings of suit under Section 6 of the Act, the apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others versus Gulbahar Sheikh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3354, has held as under: “4. A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Subsection (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section. No review of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. Thus, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; for the High Court would not interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of the Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well settled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.” 9. Order VII Rule 1 CPC provides the particulars to be contained in the plaint whereas Order VIII CPC deals with written statement, setoff and counter claim wherein Rule 2 provides that defendant must raise by his pleadings all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable and all such grounds of defence, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise. Rule 3 of Order VIII CPC provides that denial in the written statement must be specific and it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff. Order X CPC empowers the Court examination of parties at the first hearing of the suit to ascertain as to whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied. 10. Relevant Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Order X CPC reads as under : “ORDER X EXAMINATION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT 1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied. At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the opposite party, and as are not expressly or by the necessary implication admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. The court shall record such admissions and denials. …............... 2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party. The court shall record such admissions and denials. …............... 2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party. (1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court (a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and (b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied. (2) At any subsequent hearing, the Court may orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied. (3) The Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of an examination under this rule questions suggested by either party. 3. Substance of examination to be written.- The substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing by the Judge, and shall form part of the record.” 11. Order XIV CPC deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Relevant Rule 1 of Order XIV CPC reads as under : “ORDER XIV SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND DETERMINATION OF SUIT ON ISSUES OF LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON 1. Framing of issues. - (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence.” 12. Order XV Rule 1 CPC empowers the Court to dispose of the suit at the first hearing by pronouncing judgment, which reads as under : “ORDER XV DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT AT THE FIRST HEARING 1. Parties not at issue. Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the court may at once pronounce judgment.” 13. It is not res integra that the term 'first hearing of a suit' in provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order XIV Rule 1 (v) CPC and Order XV Rule 1 CPC means the day fixed for hearing on which Court applies its mind to determine the point in controversy between the parties to the suit, which ordinarily would be at the time when either issues are determined or evidence is taken. {See Ved Prakash Wadhwa versus Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1982 C 816 = (1981) 3 SCC 667 ; Sham Lal (dead) by Lrs versus Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal Bazar, AIR 1987 SC 197 = (1987) 1 SCC 222 ; Arjun Khiamal Makhijani versus Jamnadas C. Tuliani and others, (1989) 4 SCC 612 ; Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui versus Shri Prem Nath Kapoor, AIR 1993 SC 2525 = (1993) 4 SCC 406 ; Advaita Nand versus Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut and others, (1995) 3 SCC 407 ; and M/s. Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh thr. Mangat Singh (dead) by Lrs. & ors. Versus Satpal, AIR 2003 SC 4300 = (2003) 8 SCC 357 } 14. Mangat Singh (dead) by Lrs. & ors. Versus Satpal, AIR 2003 SC 4300 = (2003) 8 SCC 357 } 14. In instant case, respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act for restoration of his peaceful possession as a tenant alleging his forcible dispossession by the landlord, i.e. petitioners-defendants, without adopting due course of law by locking the premises rented out to the respondent-plaintiff. 15. In the written statement, petitioners-defendants had admitted renting out premises in question to respondent-plaintiff and also putting locks thereupon with an explanation that the said premises was found without lock for two days and, thus, to protect the premises to be further being sublet to others alleging that rented premises had been sublet by respondent-plaintiff to someone else resulting into loss of possession by respondent-plaintiff and also that respondent-plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the premises for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.42,500/- up to 31st March, 2016, as the respondent-plaintiff had not paid rent since 1st March, 2015 and also for non-payment of electricity bill amounting to Rs.7,064/- since 9th February, 2012 till 31st August, 2016. 16. Keeping in view the nature and scope of a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act, material proposition of fact, in present case, is that as to whether respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the premises in question as a tenant of petitioners-defendants and he has been dispossessed without adopting the due process of law and material proposition of law is that as to whether the suit under Section 6 of the Act has been preferred within six months of forcible dispossession of the respondent-plaintiff. 17. In the plaint, respondent-plaintiff has specifically pleaded his possession as a tenant and putting locks by the landlord on 14th July, 2016 upon the premises rented to him resulting into his forcible dispossession from the said premises. 17. In the plaint, respondent-plaintiff has specifically pleaded his possession as a tenant and putting locks by the landlord on 14th July, 2016 upon the premises rented to him resulting into his forcible dispossession from the said premises. In the written statement, petitioners-defendants have not disputed renting out of the premises to the respondent-plaintiff and his possession till 14th July, 2016, rather, they have admitted putting locks on the premises in question on 14th July, 2016 with explanation that the said premises was lying unlocked since 13th July, 2016 and, therefore, after informing the police and Gram Panchayat, the said premises was locked in presence of Up Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and the said act was justified for arrears of rent, non-payment of electricity bill and subletting of one portion of the said premises. 18. It is evident from the material on record that for the purpose of adjudicating a suit under Section 6 of the Act, there was no denial of the assertion and the facts pleaded by respondent-plaintiff with respect to possession of the premises in question rented out by the petitioners-defendants and locking the said premises by the petitioners-defendants without taking recourse under law available to the petitioners-defendants. 19. Date of dispossession, i.e. 14th July, 2016, has also not been disputed by the petitioners-defendants. Suit was preferred within the period of six months prescribed under Section 6 of the Act as the same was filed on 14th October, 2016. Therefore, material proposition of fact or law, as affirmed by the respondent-plaintiff, has not been denied, rather, admitted by the petitioners-defendants in the suit. There was no issue in dispute of material proposition of fact or law and thus, parties were not at issue on any question of law or fact to be adjudicated upon under Section 6 of the Act. 20. So far as question of recovering the possession for arrears of rent or non-payment of electricity bill or subletting the portion of premises by the respondent-plaintiff is concerned, petitioners-defendants have an independent right to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in competent Court of law, which are definitely not to be adjudicated upon in a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Act. 21. 21. It may be noticed that learned Civil Judge has not reduced the substance of examination of party, as provided under Rule 3 of Rule X CPC read with Order XIV Rule 1 (5) CPC and also from the impugned judgment, it does not appear that he opted for oral examination of party, as provided under Rule 2 of Order X CPC, but the purpose of these provisions is to ascertain as to whether there is any issue in dispute arising between the parties from a material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other. But omission to carry out such exercise does not have any effect on merits of order as such exercise was necessary only if parties would have been at variance on material propositions of fact or of law and, as discussed hereinabove and hereinafter, there is no such variance in present case. 22. During hearing of the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has reasserted that it is not disputed that premises in question was rented out to respondent-plaintiff by the petitioners-defendants and the said premises was locked by the petitioners-defendants on 14th July, 2016, as admitted in the written statement, but, has argued that the learned Civil Judge has committed an error by passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of respondent-plaintiff ignoring the plea of the petitioners-defendant with regard to arrears of rent, non-payment of electricity bill and subletting of a portion of the premises in question. 23. Petitioners-defendants have also relied upon pronouncement of apex Court in case titled as K. Seetharam versus B.U. Papamma & Anr., reported in 2001 (2) Apex Court Journal 682 (SC). The facts of the said case were entirely different from the present case. 23. Petitioners-defendants have also relied upon pronouncement of apex Court in case titled as K. Seetharam versus B.U. Papamma & Anr., reported in 2001 (2) Apex Court Journal 682 (SC). The facts of the said case were entirely different from the present case. As per submissions made on behalf of petitioners defendants, referred to above, and also evident from the written statement and documents placed on record by petitioners-defendants, material proposition of fact with regard to possession of respondent-plaintiff upon premises in question as a tenant and putting locks thereon by the petitioners-defendants resulting into dispossession of respondent-plaintiff without adopting due process of law stands admitted by petitioners-defendants whereas in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners-defendants, the findings of the Courts below were clearly found to be contrary to the record and it was found that the Courts below had erred in construing that the defendant had admitted the pleadings of the plaintiff as there was a categorical denial of the defendant in the written statement with regard to assertion of the plaintiff made in the plaint. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of present case. 24. Keeping in view the settled position of law with regard to nature and scope of suit under Section 6 of the Act, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that for all these issues related to arrears of rent, non-payment of electricity bills and subletting, petitioners-defendants should have approached the competent Court of law under the relevant provision of law applicable and available for redressal of his grievances. 25. For aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the learned Civil Judge has not committed any error in decreeing the suit of respondent-plaintiff. There is no material illegality, irregularity, infirmity or error of jurisdiction exercising the powers by the learned Civil Judge in terms of the impugned judgment. 26. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition, hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.