JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri RS Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents in spite of names of counsel being shown in the cause list.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 140/2007. The said suit was instituted by the petitioner as plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter the Act, 1963).

3. At the outset, the learned counsel has submitted that under Section 6 (iii) of the Act, no appeal lies against any order or decree and therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 31.12.1983 and 25.03.1989, the petitioner came in the possession of a plot of land which measures 1 Bigha, 2 Katha and 10 Lechas in aggregate. The petitioner alleges that on 02.12.1994, he was dispossessed by the defendants leading to filing of the title suit. The same was renumbered as TS case No. 140/2007.

5. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the issues in the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2011 has submitted that issue no. 7 is specifically on the point of dispossession and was structured in the following manner:

“Whether the defendant no. 1 to 4 dispossessed the plaintiff on 02.12.94 as alleged?”

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid issue has been decided by the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh by taking into consideration irrelevant factors and misleading evidence and also by overlooking the relevant factors and the evidence on record. He submits that the learned Court, in spite of being confined to the aspect of dispossession had gone to the aspect of title which is not the purpose and objective of a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act. He submits that the requirement of the aforesaid provision of law is a fact of dispossession without the consent of the plaintiff from immovable property and without following the due course of law which according to the learned counsel have been duly fulfilled in the present case.

7. The submissions advanced by Shri Mishra, the learned counsel have been duly considered.

8. Section 6 of the Act, 1963 reads as follows:

“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.—

(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought—

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or

(b) against the Government.

(3) 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.

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”

9. The requirement of the statute can be laid down in the following manner:

i. There is a fact of dispossession of a person from an immovable property.

ii. Such dispossession is without his consent.

iii. Such dispossession has been done without following due course of law.

Under such conditions, a suit under Section 6 of the Act can be instituted for recovery of possession.

10. What transpires is that it is a fact of possession which needs to be established before such allegation of dispossession.

11. This Court has also noticed that Court adjudicating a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act is not required to go to the aspect of title and the examination would only be on the aspect of possession and dispossession. The statute also bars any appeal unlike any other order or decree passed by a Civil Court. The objective of such provision is based on the fact that the dispute is only with regard to the dispossession and therefore finality has been