Supreme Court of India
SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. versus GULBAHAR SHEIKH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 2 April 2004
- Judges listed
- R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2004] 3 S.C.R. 735 · 2004 INSC 226
- Also cited as
- (2004) 4 SCC 664
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 736, margin A
Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act') complaining of dispossession of immovable property otherwise than in due course of the respondents. The suit was contested. Evidenc~. oral and documentary, was adduced. The trial Court found the plaintiff-appellants entitled to a and hence decreed the suit.
p. 736, margin A
The defendant-respondents filed a revision under Section 115 of of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'the Code', for short). The revision been allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants directed dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal by leave.
p. 736, margin B
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 firiding out possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Sub-Section Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree 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 Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the 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, remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy filing a revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; High Court would not interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 Code.
p. 736, margin C
A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the High Court for the purpose of reversing the decree of the trial Court relied on the statements ofNatai Sheikh, PW-3 and Ram Sevak Ram, PW-5. One sentence each from the two depositions has been extracted and set out by the Court in its order for the purpose of forming an opinion that they are plaintiffs but the defendants who were in possession of the suit property before six months from the date of the institution of the suit. The High has not looked into all the material available on record and has also indicated clearly the availability of any of the grounds within the parameters of Section 115 of the Code so as to exercise revisional jurisdiction calling for reversal of the decision of the trial Court under Section 6 of the Act. The revision filed before the High Court cannot be said to have been satisfactorily disposed of.
pp. 736–737, margin F
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The civil revision in the High Court shall stand restored to file for hearing and decision afresh in accordance with law. No order as to the costs in this appeal.
p. 737, margin B
Parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the High Court on 17th May, 2004. R.P. Appeal allowed.
p. 737, margin B