Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Sole question involved in this case is, whether in a suit under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), when appeal is not provided from any decree or order passed in any suit instituted under it, whether appeal against the order of the trial Court, on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be maintainable under Order XLIII of the Code.

2. Before referring to the facts of this case, order passed by Court on 5.10.2004 when this petition came up for consideration which in my view is relevant for deciding it needs to be noted:- ABCD in the plan attached with the plaint. He was tenant under Mr. Sushil Chand Puri defendant.

5. Plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1 on 15.4.2004 came to the spot and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from this lawn/garden and in this process, he damaged the plants as well as retaining wall of the house. But, the plaintiff successfully retained his possession over this lawn/garden.

6. On 24.4.2004, defendant No. 1 filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and under the garb of the status quo order, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Shimla fenced this land on 28.4.2004 by putting barbed wires and also by dispossessing the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 had no right to dispossess him, (the plaintiff). It was in this background that the suit under Section 6 of the Act was filed along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. His application was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.7.2004. In appeal under Order XLIII Rule l(r), CPC, learned Appellate Court below allowed the same after setting aside the order of trial Court, restrained defendant No. 1 from changing the nature of the land depicted by letters ABCD in the plan supra, arid also from raising construction till the disposal of the suit. It is against this appellate order, present petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1 wherein on 5.10.2004, the above extracted order was passed.

7. For ready reference, the extract of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, is given herein below:— "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 persom from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof."

8. A bare reading of this Section clearly suggests that no appeal is maintainable against any decree or order passed under this Section. Learned Counsel for the parties on a pure question of law were not at variance that suit under Section 6 is in the nature of urgent and summary remedy available to a litigant. Party aggrieved from an order/decree passed in the suit is entitled to maintain a regular suit on the basis of its right/title to the property qua the subject matter of the suit. Aggrieved party can also maintain revision against the decree/order, passed in proceedings under Section 6 of the Act.

9. However, while opposing the petition being not maintainable, Mr. Yadupatti Sood, learned Counsel for the plaintiff forcefully urged that appeal filed by his client was not from an order under Section 6 supra, but was against an interim order passed on an application in such proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC therefore, such an appeal would be governed only by Order XLIII CPC and thus according to him impugned order passed by