The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is summary in nature, focusing on possession and dispossession within a specific timeframe, and does not adjudicate the question of title.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 01.10.2013 whereby the Trial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC by which section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (Act) was sought to be included in the heading of the suit.

Brief facts

2. The petitioners had filed a suit claiming permanent and mandatory injunction. Thereafter, an application was filed for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession instead of mandatory injunction, which was allowed in the year 2004. By the aforesaid application, which is the subject matter of this petition, it was submitted that in the heading of the suit section 6 of the Act had not been mentioned; but the suit itself was self-speaking since it had been filed under section 6 of the Act, therefore by amending the title of the suit, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as no further evidence was required to be led by the parties.

3. In reply to the application, the respondents submitted that the application was a misuse of the process of law and had been filed to delay the proceedings; that the application could be allowed since the trial of the suit was complete; that the plaintiff was seeking to change the nature of the suit entirely, which was impermissible in law.

Impugned order

4. The Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners. It noted that: proceedings under section 6 were summary in nature, where the rights of the parties do not get adjudicated; for a suit under section 6, only the factum of possession in the preceding six months of the date of institution of the suit was material; the law mandates that a suit under section 6 must clearly mention in the plaint itself that the suit lies under the said provision; it is not permissible to incorporate any other relief in a suit under the statutory provision.

5. The Trial Court further noted that neither the original nor the amended plaint mentioned section 6 of the Act. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the Trial Court was of the view that the same was not confined only to the nature of pleadings under section 6 of the Act; the plaint averred the rights of the petitioners in the suit property by virtue of which they were entitled to the relief of possession; the paragraph in relation to cause of action too, the averments were in relation to the rights of the parties by virtue of a family agreement between them, which could not be considered as a cause of action under section 6 of the Act. The Trial Court was further of the view that the amendment proposed by the petitioners, if allowed, would completely alter the nature of the suit. Hence, it could not be allowed at the stage of final arguments.

Submissions before this Court

6. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. The petitioners, inter alia, have submitted that the Trial Court has confused the provisions of section 6 of the Act and Order XXXVII, CPC; the suit was filed within 6 days of the dispossession and the plaint dealt with all the necessary ingredients of section 6; the omission to mention a statutory provision was inconsequential; that the observation of the Trial Court regarding the non-mentioning of section 6 of the Act in the original plaint and the amended plaint was erroneous; averments relating to title in the suit property can very well be made in a suit under section 6; in fact, even the absolute owner of a property forcibly dispossessed, can very well maintain a suit under section 6, where amendments do not affect the nature of the suit or the evidence, there is no bar upon the Court to allow such amendment at any stage of the suit; there is no absence of diligence on part of the petitioners, which would disentitle them to the reliefs claimed. In view of the above, the petitioners have sought setting aside of the impugned order and have prayed that their application, as filed before the Trial Court be allowed. The learned