JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.H. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition involves the following prayer: "Petitioners, therefore, pray that a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction be issued: (I) To quash the decisions under Annexures-5 and 6, (II) Let it be declared that the suit-filed by the Opp. Parties be dismissed with costs. (III) The writ application be allowed with costs, and (IV) Any other appropriate/alternative order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be also passed." 3. Submissions of learned counsels and the pleadings disclosed the dispute being raised under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was dismissed by the competent court under Annexure-5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Addl Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basudevpur in T.S. No. 60/97-1, the petitioners preferred a revision, the revision being dismissed, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order at Annexures-5 and 6 involved therein, taking this Court to the pendency of the writ petition for long years and involving the maintainability of the writ petition, Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court should decide the matter on merit. 5. To the contrary, Sri D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, taking this Court to the provision under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and also relying on the two decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Sobhabati vs. Lakshmi Chand and others, reported in AIR 1984 Orissa 171 and in the case of Mohiuddin Khan arid others vs. Nimai Charan Das and others, 1989 (I) OLR 388 , contended that for the statutory provision therein not only the revision was not maintainable but the writ petition is also not maintainable. It is in the premises that the only scope for the petitioners was to the civil suit. Sri Mohanty submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the statutory provision, this Court finds, the provision at Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows: "6. It is in the premises that the only scope for the petitioners was to the civil suit. Sri Mohanty submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the statutory provision, this Court finds, the provision at Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows: "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 possession; 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." 7. For the specific provision under Section 6 of Sub-Section-3, of Act 1963, the statute completely bars for filing appeal, this Court finds, the submission of Sri Mohanty that the revision involving the order at Annexure-5 also not maintainable has force. Further for the" provision at sub-section (4) of Section 6 in the statue for there being no provision of appeal, it is made-clear that a person aggrieved by the decree under Section 6 can" challenge such decree only by filing suit to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. For this statutory provision, this Court also finds, the submission of Sri Mohanty that the only remedy available to the petitioners by way of suit has force. 8. In the circumstances and it is at this stage, this Court taking into consideration the decisions referred to herein above and the decisions in AIR 1984 Orissa 171, this Court has clearly observed no revision in this situation is maintainable involving the decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act Same is also the view of this Court in the subsequent decision of this Court involving 1989 (I) OLR 388 . 9. 9. With the above observations and for the series of judgments of this Court and further keeping in view the statutory provisions involving Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court finds, the writ petition is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No cost.