JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Mubarak, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 32/1987 (subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 375/2006), filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. This is the third round of litigation between the parties pertaining to the same plot of land and therefore, it would be necessary to briefly narrate the factual backdrop of this case. It appears from the record that the respondents had earlier instituted Title Suit No. 107/1983 seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over a plot of land measuring 03B-1K-10¾L covered by Dag No. 534 of Khatian No. 406 described as the 'A' schedule land and also for a decree for ejectment of the defendants from the plot of land measuring 02K falling within the 'A' schedule land which was described as schedule 'B' land. The suit was decreed on 03-07-1985 pursuant whereto, Title Execution Case No. 25/1985 was started for execution of the decree. It is the claim of the respondents/ plaintiffs that the revision petitioner/ defendant was dispossessed from the 'B' schedule land in execution of the decree dated 03-07-1985 which claim has, however, been stoutly denied by the revision petitioner/ defendant. 4. It further appears from the record that the respondents/ plaintiffs had thereafter, instituted Title Suit No. 279/1987 against the petitioner as defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction but the aforesaid suit was ultimately dismissed on 27-09-1993. The respondents as plaintiffs had also instituted Title Suit No. 32/1987 in the court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri on 21-11-1987 seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Title Suit No. 32/1987 was initially decreed by the trial court on 24-07-1992. However, the decree dated 24-07-1992 was challenged by the present petitioner by filing CRP No. 348/1992 before this Court. Title Suit No. 32/1987 was initially decreed by the trial court on 24-07-1992. However, the decree dated 24-07-1992 was challenged by the present petitioner by filing CRP No. 348/1992 before this Court. By the judgment and order dated 05-07-1996, CRP No. 348/1992 was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back for fresh decision by the trial court after appointing Amin Commission so as to carryout survey and submit a report in respect of the disputed land. Accordingly, an Amin Commission was appointed which had submitted a report after conducting the survey. Taking note of the materials available on record including the Amin Commission report, the learned trial court had passed judgment and decree dated 17-07-1998 dismissing the Title Suit No. 32/1987. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-07-1998, the respondents/ plaintiffs had approached this Court by filing CRP No. 341/2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had passed judgment and order dated 18-05-2004 allowing the CRP No. 341/2001 by setting aside the impugned decree and remanding the matter to the trial court with a direction to appoint a fresh Amin Commission so as to ascertain the actual boundary of the land under possession of the plaintiffs and defendants as claimed by the respective parties. Upon being remanded, the suit was decided afresh by the judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 6. By referring to the impugned judgment dated 31-07-2013, Mr. Banerjee submits that notwithstanding the clear direction of the High Court as contained in order dated 18-05-2004, the learned Munsiff did not appoint any fresh Amin Commission so as to ascertain the actual boundary of the land but had gone on to decree the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs without recording any proper finding on the above aspect of the matter. It is also the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that finding on the material issues regarding illegal dispossession of the respondents as well as the institution of the suit within 06 months thereof, had not been recorded by the court below and therefore, the impugned decree is unsustainable in the eye of law on such count alone. 7. Responding to the said submission of Mr. counsel that finding on the material issues regarding illegal dispossession of the respondents as well as the institution of the suit within 06 months thereof, had not been recorded by the court below and therefore, the impugned decree is unsustainable in the eye of law on such count alone. 7. Responding to the said submission of Mr. Mondal, learned counsel representing the respondents has invited the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of the issue No. 6 so as to contend that the claims and counter claims of the parties have been elaborately dealt with by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence available on record and therefore, it is not correct that there is no finding regarding dispossession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. Mr. Mondol does not deny that no Amin Commission had been appointed by the trial court in terms of the order dated 18-05-2004 but in his attempt to justify the non-compliance of the said direction, the learned counsel has referred to the observation of the trial court which mentions that fresh Amin Commission was not appointed due to non-availability of “vandyke map”. Mr. Mondal has, however, submitted in his usual fairness that there is no finding recorded by the trial court regarding actual date of dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land. 8. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. As alluded to above, the suit was one for issuance of a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Law is well settled that a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is summary in nature and the purpose of the said provision is to offer speedy remedy of restoration of possession. Such a suit is based only on previous possession and illegal dispossession. Law is well settled that a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is summary in nature and the purpose of the said provision is to offer speedy remedy of restoration of possession. Such a suit is based only on previous possession and illegal dispossession. A decree for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be passed only if the grounds mentioned in the said provision is fulfilled, i.e. if the plaintiff or any person claiming through him approaches court by filing a suit to recover possession on the ground that, the person had been dispossessed from the immovable property without his consent and otherwise then in due course of law and that the suit is brought within six months of dispossession as per requirement of section 6(2)(a) of the Act. 9. In the present case, based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in present form? (2) Whether the suit is barred under law of limitation? (3) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit? (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (5) Whether the suit is barred by res-judicata? (6) Whether the defendant was evicted by T. Ex. Case No. 25/85? (7) Whether the plaintiff has dispossessed from suit land without due course of law by the defendant? (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as prayed for? 10. From a reading of the issues it would be evident that issue No. 7 was the material issue for the purpose of deciding the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But the findings recorded in respect of the said issue does not throw any light on manner and mode of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land. The findings recorded by the learned trial court as regards issue No. 7 would be relevant for this case and is, therefore, quoted here-in-below: “ISSUE NO. 7. WHETHER PLAINTIFF DISPOSSESSED FROM THE SUIT LAND In the light of discussion and decision made in issue No. 6 it clearly proves the plaintiff was disposed by the defendant from the suit land. Hence, this issue is answered in affirmative and in favor of plaintiff.”] 11. Mr. 7. WHETHER PLAINTIFF DISPOSSESSED FROM THE SUIT LAND In the light of discussion and decision made in issue No. 6 it clearly proves the plaintiff was disposed by the defendant from the suit land. Hence, this issue is answered in affirmative and in favor of plaintiff.”] 11. Mr. Mondal has strenuously argued that the learned court below has elaborately dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case while deciding the issue No. 6 but from a reading of the impugned judgment, I do not find any finding recorded by the learned trial court as regards the date and manner of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land. Rather the issue No. 6 is entirely devoted towards discussions pertaining to the earlier round of litigation between the parties, which in the considered opinion of this Court, would have little relevance in the context of the present suit. Therefore, it is evident that there is no finding recorded by the trial court as regards the date or the manner and mode of the dispossession so as to enable this court to draw an conclusion that the suit had been instituted within six months from the date of illegal dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land. As such, the impugned decree is clearly unsustainable in law. 12. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves to be mentioned herein. By the judgment and order dated 18-05-2004, this Court had issued a specific direction to the trial court to appoint a fresh Amin Commission but I find from the record that no such Amin Commission was appointed. The reasoning given by the learned trial court for not doing so also appears to totally untenable in the eye of law inasmuch as the approach of the learned trial court, on the face of the record, appears to be contumacious. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned decree has been passed in violation of the order of this court and hence, would not be sustainable in the eye of law on such count well. 13. For the reasons stated here-in-before, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 14. 13. For the reasons stated here-in-before, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-07-2013 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 14. Having held as above, it is noteworthy that the parties have been litigating in respect of the same plot of land for over three decades and the claim of the plaintiffs appears to one based on title. The suit raises heavily disputed questions of ownership rights and possession set out by both parties in respect of the dispute of the land, which in the opinion of this Court, is a matter that needs to be decided in a regular title suit by following due process of law. In view of the above, it is hereby provided that notwithstanding this order, it would be open for the parties to approach the civil court by filing regular title suit agitating their rights in respect of the disputed land, if so advised. The revision petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no order as to cost.