Heard Sri Bandana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel representing appellant and Sri M.S. Ram Chandra Rao, learned counsel representing respondent.

2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.30 of 2006 on the file of the Agency Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, being aggrieved of the decree and judgment made therein had preferred the present appeal.

3. It is not in serious controversy between the parties that respondent-plaintiff instituted the said suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

4. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing the respondent raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of a regular appeal as against the decree and judgment made in the suit aforesaid on the ground that the said decree was made under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and,, hence, in view of Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 an appeal would not lie.

5. Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant, however, would maintain that in view of the fact that the decree was made in original suit O.S.No.30 of 2006, a regular appeal had been preferred and in the event of this Court being satisfied that a regular appeal cannot be maintained, the learned counsel may be permitted to pursue the other lawful remedies by duly permitting the appellant-defendant to convert the same into civil revision petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao and Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal.

(1) Whether the preliminary objection raised by Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao relating to the maintainability of regular appeal be accepted or to be negatived in the light of the relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

(2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled?

7. Point No.1:

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with "suit by person dispossessed of immovable property".

8. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifies that 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.

9. It is needless to say that in the light of the same a regular appeal as such cannot be maintained.

10. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability, upholding the preliminary objection raised by Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao in this regard, it may be just and proper to permit the appellant-defendant to convert this appeal into a civil revision petition after complying with necessary formalities in accordance with law.

11. Point No.2:

In the result the appellant-defendant is permitted to convert this appeal into a civil revision petition after complying with necessary formalities in accordance with law.

12. The appeal is ordered accordingly as indicated above. No costs.