ORDER : B.S.BHANUMATHI, J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 06.12.2024, dismissing I.A.No.44 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur, filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to enter into the suit schedule property. 2. Heard Sri Budige Bhoja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. On 31.01.2011, the petitioner purchased a site in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents from S. Pedda Veeranna, S. Vimala, S. Ravindra Prasad, S. Chandra Mohan and S. Mallikarjunappa under valid consideration. They executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and delivered possession and since the date of the sale deed, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same having constructed a building in an extent of Ac.0.07 cents. b. While so, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 06.06.2015 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from S. Naga Purushotham Reddy and executed a registered sale deed in his favour with regard to suit schedule house property bearing Door No.16-39A1 for security and on the same day, S. Naga Purushotham Reddy executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner agreeing to re- convey the suit schedule property after clearing the aforesaid debt. However, possession of the suit schedule property was kept with the petitioner. The petitioner discharged her debt by obtaining an amount of Rs.27,20,000/- from the defendant and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant on 30.06.2018 for security purpose with a condition that after discharging the said debt, the defendant should re- convey the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The sale consideration amount is Rs.40,00,000/- . The defendant also received Rs.5,20,000/- from the petitioner towards registration charges. On the same day, the petitioner requested the defendant to execute an agreement to re- convey the sale deed in her favour. On 24.08.2019, the defendant executed an agreement to re-convey the sale deed with regard to the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner. The defendant also received Rs.5,20,000/- from the petitioner towards registration charges. On the same day, the petitioner requested the defendant to execute an agreement to re- convey the sale deed in her favour. On 24.08.2019, the defendant executed an agreement to re-convey the sale deed with regard to the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner. In the agreement, it was mentioned that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.27,20,000/- from the defendant and has to re-pay the loan amount of Rs.33,000/- every month to the bank. It was also mentioned therein that the petitioner has to pay Rs.2,10,000/- to the defendant from 24.08.2019 to 15.09.2019 and Rs.6,50,000/- on 30.11.2019 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 10.02.2020, Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.12.2020 and after payment, it was mentioned in the agreement that if payment was not made, the agreement should be cancelled and that after payment, the defendant should re-convey the sale deed in favour of the petitioner with regard to the suit schedule property. c. According to the petitioner, she paid a sum of Rs.41,50,000/- on 18.12.2018, Rs.60,000/- on 18.03.2019, Rs.60,000/- on 17.09.2019, Rs.1,20,000/- on 10.03.2020 and Rs.80,000/- on 12.03.2020 to the defendant and the proof of said payments were endorsed on the back of the agreement, dated 24.08.2019. The petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.27,20,000/- + Rs.2,10,000/- + Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- totaling to Rs.44,80,000/- to the defendant as per the agreement, dated 24.08.2019. The petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.44,70,000/- to the defendant on the above dates and as per the agreement, the balance amount to be paid is Rs.10,000/-. d. The petitioner approached the defendant to receive the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and to re-convey the sale deed in her favour. But, the defendant intentionally did not receive the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- in spite of repeated requests. Though the petitioner is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the defendant intentionally not executing the re-conveying sale deed in order to cheat the petitioner and with a view to grab the suit schedule property. e. The petitioner got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.03.2022 demanding the defendant to receive the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and re-convey the sale deed. However, the defendant failed to re-convey the sale deed and thus violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated 24.08.2019. e. The petitioner got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.03.2022 demanding the defendant to receive the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and re-convey the sale deed. However, the defendant failed to re-convey the sale deed and thus violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated 24.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement, dated 24.08.2019. f. On 23.01.2024 at 11 a.m., the defendant, her husband and her followers entered into the suit schedule property, forcibly thrown all the household articles in front of the house and locked the suit schedule property. Out of fear, the petitioner approached the Nandikotkur police station and gave complaint against the defendant and her husband. The Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Urban Police Station registered F.I.R. in Crime No.23 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 448, 354 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C. According to the petitioner, the respondent/defendant is not entitled to throw the petitioner away from the suit schedule property without taking recourse to due process of law. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition to permit her to enter into the suit schedule property till the respondent/defendant takes recourse to due process of law. 4. The respondent/defendant filed counter opposing the petition and stating as follows: a. The defendant purchased the suit schedule property from S. Naga Purushotham Reddy for a valid consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- through a registered sale deed, vide document No.8153 of 2018, dated 30.06.2018, and since then, the defendant acquired title and possession over the suit schedule property. Even after purchase of the suit schedule property by the respondent, the lease is continued between the petitioner and the respondent. Just prior to filing of the suit, the respondent asked the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property as she intended to modernize the suit schedule property. However, surprisingly, the petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for specific performance with a fabricated re-conveyance agreement, dated 24.08.2019. b. After filing of the suit, the respondent demanded the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property but she did not heed the demands of the respondent and is also not paying the rent amount. The petitioner vacated the suit schedule property and hatched a plan and gave false complaint with false allegations to Nandikotkur police against the respondent, her husband and their relatives in order to put them in fear. There is no cause of action. The petitioner vacated the suit schedule property and hatched a plan and gave false complaint with false allegations to Nandikotkur police against the respondent, her husband and their relatives in order to put them in fear. There is no cause of action. The petition is filed only to drag on the matter. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition with the following observations: “1. The delivery of possession is the subject matter gives rise cause of action to file the suit but not interlocutory application. 2. To decide the aspect of delivery of possession first of all the entitlement of parties to the suit has to be decided. Prior to deciding, entertaining this type of application is nothing but premature. 3. Unless and until the fate of sale deed, dated 06.06.2015 executed by petitioner in favour of S. Naga Purushotham Reddy and the further sale deed executed by Naga Purushotham Reddy in favour of the respondent and further the re-conveyance deed, dated 06-06-2015, if any in between petitioner and Naga Purushotham Reddy is decided, who is the original owner cannot be concluded. Until who is the original owner is decided, the accept of possession cannot be adjudicated. 4. Since the respondent taken plea of fabrication of suit document, i.e., re-conveyance deed, dated 15-09-2019 (sic.24.08.2019), until fate of these (sic. this) document is decided, this Court cannot decide the accept of possession. 5. The recent judgment of Honourable Apex Court in W.P.No.295/2022 pertains to evicting the parties forcibly without due process of law. Such judgment is helpful to the petitioner in the separate suit for delivery of possession or if delivery of possession is one of the fact in issue in this suit or if the petitioner entitled for specific performance, absolutely the possession will be delivered; but that judgment is no way helpful to the petitioner at this stage of the case.” 6. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred this revision petition. 7. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner raised mainly the following grounds:- 1. The trial Court erred in holding that delivery of possession is the subject matter giving rise cause of action to file the suit but not the interlocutory application. 2. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred this revision petition. 7. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner raised mainly the following grounds:- 1. The trial Court erred in holding that delivery of possession is the subject matter giving rise cause of action to file the suit but not the interlocutory application. 2. The trial Court erred in holding that to decide the aspect of delivery of possession, first of all, the entitlement of the parties to the suit has to be decided and prior to deciding, entertaining this type of application is nothing but premature. 3. The trial Court erred in holding that unless and until who is the original owner is decided, the acceptance of possession cannot be adjudicated. 4. The trial Court erred in holding that the respondent took a plea of fabrication of suit document, i.e., re-conveyance deed, dated 15.09.2019 (sic.24.08.2019), until fate of this document is decided, this Court cannot decide the acceptance of possession. 5. The trial Court failed to appreciate that pending the suit, the respondent forcibly thrown the petitioner from the suit schedule house and thrown the household articles outside the suit schedule house, but without considering the same, the trial Court gave a finding which is outside the scope of the relief sought. 6. The trial Court failed to understand that the respondent pleaded that after filing of the suit, the respondent demanded the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property, but the petitioner did not heed the demands of the respondent and also not paying the rent amount, and so, the respondent took steps to vacate the suit schedule property. 7. There is flaw in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Perused the order impugned and the grounds of revision. 9. When a person is dispossessed, the remedy is available under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to file a suit within six (6) months for restoration of possession. However, in the present matter, since the suit is pending, the petitioner filed petition for restoration of possession by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. 10. 9. When a person is dispossessed, the remedy is available under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to file a suit within six (6) months for restoration of possession. However, in the present matter, since the suit is pending, the petitioner filed petition for restoration of possession by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. 10. According to the plaintiff, a sale deed was executed in favour of S. Naga Purushotham Reddy as a collateral security at the time of borrowing Rs.20,00,000/- on 06.06.2015 and executed the sale deed on the same day. However, it was agreed that S.Naga Purushotham Reddy shall execute a re-conveyance deed to the plaintiff on discharge of the loan amount, but later borrowing the amount from the defendant, the loan to S.Naga Purushotham Reddy was discharged and in turn, S.Naga Purushotham Reddy executed a registered sale deed to the defendant with a condition to re-convey the property to the plaintiff on discharge of the loan amount to the defendant. The petitioner further stated that the defendant also executed an agreement to re-convey her property by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and fixed the schedule of payment of money and also to acknowledge the receipt of such payment on the agreement to re-convey and that out of the total amount of Rs.44,80,000/- to be paid to the defendant, the plaintiff paid already Rs.44,70,000/- and the amount due is only Rs.10,000/- and when the same was offered, since the defendant failed to accept the same and re-convey the property, the plaintiff filed the suit. 11. On the other hand, the defendant admitted that the property was purchased from S.Naga Purushotham Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-, however, contended that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as a lessee under S.Naga Purushotham Reddy and continued on lease even under the defendant on monthly rent payable @ Rs.10,000/- and later failed to pay the amount and filed the suit to the surprise of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that in spite of the sale deed, the plaintiff continued in possession. Though possession of the property by the plaintiff was admitted by the defendant in the written statement, the nature of possession is denied and described the possession of the plaintiff ‘as a lessee’, by totally denying the re-conveyance deed. 12. The defendant pleaded that in spite of the sale deed, the plaintiff continued in possession. Though possession of the property by the plaintiff was admitted by the defendant in the written statement, the nature of possession is denied and described the possession of the plaintiff ‘as a lessee’, by totally denying the re-conveyance deed. 12. At this juncture, pending the suit, the petitioner filed the petition urging high-handed dispossession by the defendant and also lodging a complaint in that regard with the police. 13. The defendant filed counter stating that steps were taken to get the suit schedule property vacated, after asking the plaintiff to vacate the property as she did not heed the request nor was the plaintiff paying the rent. The defendant further stated in the counter that the petitioner vacated the suit schedule property calmly and hatched a wild plan and gave a false complaint to the police. These circumstances would go to show that a detailed enquiry is required regarding the disputed aspects. But, it is clear that the defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiff and also taking steps to get the plaintiff vacated, however, claims that plaintiff remained calm vacating the property. 14. Though the plaintiff pleaded that huge amount of money was borrowed from the defendant and repaid, large part of it except Rs.10,000/- and it is also pleaded that the payment must be acknowledged, there is no such evidence placed nor was it discussed by the trial Court. That apart, some pleadings appear to be inconsistent. The plaintiff submitted that on 24.08.2019, the re- conveyance agreement was executed by the defendant with a schedule of payment to be made from 24.08.2019 till 20.12.2020 as noted above and already Rs.27,20,000/- was paid under the conveyance agreement, dated 24.08.2019, but again, later, it is pleaded that Rs.41,50,000/- was paid on 18.12.2018, much before re-conveyance agreement, dated 24.08.2019. Of course, the other payments were also mentioned, as noted above. Various payments described are not consistent with the schedule of payments said to be fixed in the re-conveyance agreement. All these facts are necessary to appreciate the case of the plaintiff even for the purpose of granting the relief in the petition. Along with the plaint, except the agreement, dated 24.08.2019, the legal notice, dated 23.03.2022 and postal track record of service of notice on the defendant on 23.06.2022, there is no other evidence placed. 15. All these facts are necessary to appreciate the case of the plaintiff even for the purpose of granting the relief in the petition. Along with the plaint, except the agreement, dated 24.08.2019, the legal notice, dated 23.03.2022 and postal track record of service of notice on the defendant on 23.06.2022, there is no other evidence placed. 15. The trial Court dismissed the petition mainly observing that all the contentious aspects cannot be adjudicated in the petition and they need a detailed trial. If the petitioner can make out her best case, in view of her admitted possession, dispossession, if high-handed, as without adopting the legal recourse, is to be appropriately dealt with. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is also required in the petition as well and cannot be simply dismissed by observing that a trial is required on the disputed aspects in the suit. The main question in the suit is whether there is a re-conveyance agreement or not. 16. Here, in the present petition, since possession of the plaintiff is admitted till dispossessed, pending the suit, the enquiry in the petition is slightly different from the main issue in the suit. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to the trial Court to re-hear the petition giving adequate opportunity to both parties to place necessary material before the Court in support of their respective contentions and then pass appropriate orders. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 06.12.2024, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur, in I.A.No.44 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022. The trial Court is directed to re-hear the petition afresh, after giving adequate opportunity to both parties to place necessary material before the Court in support of their respective contentions and then pass appropriate order afresh without being influenced by any observations of this Court in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.