The question as to the admissibility of Revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and appeal/ review of the order/judgment under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was examined by the High Court of Delhi, consisting of Justice Pratibha M. Singh in the matter of Balwinder Singh vs. Kamal Kishore [CM APPL. 42960/2021] on 24.12.2021.
The facts of the case were that Plaintiff is the owner of the West part of property No. A-40 (part) Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi, (hereinafter “suit property”) which was allegedly illegally broken into by Defendant, who was the owner of the remaining part of the suit property. The suit was filed under Sections 6 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking a decree of declaration, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit property. Plaintiff was able to establish that the property was purchased from one Sh. Monu Aggarwal by producing the electricity bills in the name of Shri Monu Aggrawal. A photograph PW1/X8-13 placed on the record of the Trial Court clearly showed that there was a wall which was erected between the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s portion which was demolished by Defendant. Further Exhibit DW6/1, which is relied upon by both the parties also reveals the entrance to the Plaintiff’s side of the property having been freshly plastered with the evidence of a doorbell space in the wall which showed that there was a separate entrance from the street, to the suit property. On the strength of the evidence, the Trial Court directed Defendant to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to Plaintiff and to restore the main door in front of the road along with the partition wall of the suit property within one month from the date of judgment.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the actual position was that one part of the property was in the possession of Defendant, however, the suit property, i.e., 1/4th share of the property was in possession of the Plaintiff. Moreover, there was a partition wall erected to divide the two portions of the property which were in the possession of the Defendant and the Plaintiff respectively. There was also a front door which enabled entrance to the suit property. Since the Plaintiff was not regularly residing in the suit property since 2006 and was residing in the neighbourhood, he used to visit the suit property every two three days, the Defendant took advantage of the same and blocked the front entrance of the suit property with a brick wall and broke the separating wall from the inside. Thus, the Defendant has no rights in the suit property and the decree has been rightly passed by the Trial Court and execution has already been preferred by the Plaintiff of the impugned decree. It was further submitted that the original deeds relating to the suit property were deposited with State Bank of India as the property was mortgaged in lieu of loan taken by Late Shri S. Harbans Singh, father of the Plaintiff. Vide a letter dated 27th September, 2003 issued by the SBI, it was stated that the said bank has misplaced the documents related to the suit property and no dues were left to be paid to the bank. Further, then plaintiff relied on the Will of the original owner Sh. Harbans Singh whose title is not disputed even by the Defendant itself showed that he had created four separate parts in the property: East, West and two middle parts. The East part given to Shri. Balwinder Singh and the West part was given to the mother of the Plaintiff, Shri Ranjeet Kaur and two middle parts of the property were purchased by Sh. Gulzar Khan. It is this portion which was sold to Mr. Monu Aggarwal and thereafter purchased by the Plaintiff from Mr. Monu Aggarwal thereby establishing title of the Plaintiff over the Property.
The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that that mere electricity bills in the name of Sh. Monu Aggarwal would not be sufficient as there is no consumption of electricity shown in those bills. It is evident from the electricity bill in the name of Mr. Monu Aggarwal, that not even a single unit of electricity was consumed which shows that the Plaintiff was not residing in the suit property. He also relies upon the testimony of DW-10 from the BSES who deposed that he cannot say if there was any consumption of electricity from 2000 to 2004. The said sale by Mr. Monu Aggarwal to the Plaintiff should, therefore, not be recognised by this Court. It was further submitted by counsel for the Defendant that there are several litigations between the parties and the said Will on which the reliance is placed by the Plaintiff is forged.
The High Court of Delhi held that the scope of a Revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is to see if there is any gross jurisdictional error. Thus, the question of facts raised before this Court by the Defendant cannot be analysed under revisional jurisdiction. In the opinion of this Court, it is for cases like the one presently before this Court that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been enacted. The purpose and import of section 6 is to give quick and immediate relief to any person who has been dispossessed. Furthermore, the intent of the legislature while enacting the said provision is also clear as no appeal from orders and decrees passed under Section 6 of the Act can be provided. In view of the legislative bar placed by Section 6(3) of the Act no appeal/ review of the order/judgment can be entertained by this Court against the order passed by the Trial Court under section 6. Accordingly, the present petition, along with all pending applications, was disposed of.
Judgment reviewed by Shristi Suman.