In a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the question of title or status of the defendant as a tenant is not involved and the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit without referring the issue to the tenancy authorities.

JUDGMENT - TULPULE R.D., J.: - This revesion application has been placed before us on the order of the single judge passed on 25th of August 1975, referring the question raised before him to the division bench, though no question as such had been specifically framed or referred to the division bench for its decision it is implicit in the matter making the reference that the question which was referred to the division bench for decision was whether in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, if a defence is raised by the defendant that he was a tenant, has the issue to be referred to the tenancy authorities.

2. We may incidentally mention that after the matter was placed for

hearing before the division bench of this Court consisting of Dharmadhikari and Gadgil JJ., the division bench felt that as some important question of law were raised in the revision application which were of vital importance and likely to arise in many more matters, the matter should be decided by a larger bench. The revision application was then placed before a full bench consisting of Deshmukh, C. J. and Gadgil and Jamdar J J, when the full bench quashed the reference on the ground that it was not competent, and the division bench could decide all questions of importance which arise and therefore, referred the matter back to the division bench. That is how this matter has how been placed before us.

3. At the outset we may refer to one of the contentions which is raised by Mr. Choudhari that the suit out of which this revision application has arisen was not a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Mr. Choudhari contended that the recitals in the plaint have to be construed

as a whole and if they are so construed then since the plaintiff has prayed in the plaint that he be awarded mesne profits and an enquiry into future mesne profits be directed, the suit is taken out of the ambit of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. We have not allowed Mr. Choudhari to raise this contention before us, for the simple reason that the reference to a larger bench by the single Judge has proceeded on the footing that the suit was one under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Were this contention to be urged before the Single Judge and were to succeed, it is plain that no reference could have been made Incidentally we think that Mr. Choudhari is not well advised in raising this contention inasmuch as there is authority to the proposition that in a suit under section 6 (former section 9 of the Specific Relief Act) of the Specific Relief Act, relief of mesne profits or damages could be joined. An authority for this proposition may be found in the case Ram Parekh Bai(Dffendant) v. Sheodibai .Joti(plaintiff)1 I.L.R., Vol. XV, All. 384.

4. That takes us to the principal question which is agitated before us. The contentions raised by Mr. Choudhari, to put them briefly, are that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide all suits of a civil nature, excepting

suits of which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. A suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is a suit of a civil nature and therefore,

cognizable by a civil Court.

5. Mr. Choudhari contended that therefore, in a suit under section 6

of the Specific Relief Act (former section 9) if a contention was raised by the defendant in regard to the nature of his claim to the property, that contention was required to be decided Further it was his contention that in the Civil Procedure Code there is no bar to the defendant from raising any particular plea. Where a plea is irrelevant or scurrilous or defamatory there is provision for striking out that plea or defence. He, therefore, urged that as long as a plea was not struck off or declared to be irrelevant, and ordered to be expunged from the written statement, a Civil Court competent to decide a dispute of a civil nature was obliged to decide upon that dispute as a further part of the argument, it was his contention, that if the decision on such a specific

Click Here to Read the rest of this document