A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is a summary remedy available to the person in possession of immovable property when he is dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law. It is not maintainable against the State and after expiry of the period of six months from the date of dispossession.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Panposh in a suit under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act ('act' for short ). The plaintiff is the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case in short is that in the year 1973 she acquired schedule 'b' land of the plaint measuring 65' X 40' out of plot No. 533/7 (1) of mouza-Mahulpali within Rourkela town with a house standing thereon from one Narasingh Sahu. Since then she is in possession thereof by making improvements and has installed a flour mill. Defendant 1 (opposite party 1) is in possession of the adjacent land on the eastern side bearing plot No. 533/8 having his house thereon. Between the 30th Oct. and Ist Nov. 1979, defendant 1 in connivance with defendants 2 and 3 encroached upon 27' X 21' of land out of plot No. 533/7 (1) described in greater detail in schedule 'a' of the plaint and constructed a structure thereon without having any right to do so. Therefore, in instituting the suit under S. 6 of the Act, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession in respect of schedule 'a' land of the plaint after eviction of the defendants therefrom and for permanent injunction.

( 3 ) THE case of defendant 1 is that schedule 'a' land of the plaint forms part of plot No. 533/8 which he is in possession since 1958. He has acquired title in respect thereof by adverse possession. Therefore, neither the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for nor can he be evicted therefrom.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif held that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was in possession of schedule 'a' land of the plaint and so he declined to grant the reliefs prayed for by her.

( 5 ) TWO points arise for consideration :- (1) Whether the plaintiff has been able to establish by adducing evidence that she was in possession of schedule 'a' land of the plaint prior to the alleged dispossession by defendant 1 ? (2) Whether the civil revision is does not operate as a bar to the institution of maintainable under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

( 6 ) MR. S. K. Dey appearing for the plaintiff urged that this is pure and simple case of boundary dispute and if a survey knowing commissioner will be deputed to demarcate plot No. 533/7 (1) from plot No. 533/8, the dispute will be solved. Mr. P. K. Misra, on the other hand contended that this is not a simple case of boundary dispute which can be settled by deputing a survey knowing commissioner to demarcate the boundaries of the plaintiff and defendant 1. Since the suit was under S. 6 of the Act, onus was on the plaintiff to establish her possession in respect of schedule 'a' land of the plaint.

( 7 ) THE contention of Mr. Dey is untenable for the reason that it is not a simple case of boundary dispute. As a matter of fact, the land involved and described in greater detail in schedule 'a' of the plaint is quite sizeable measuring 27' X 21' in respect of which there are claim and counter-claim in the plaint and the written statement respectively, Questions of possession and dispossession are also involved. If it was a simple case of boundary dispute, the plaintiff would have taken out a survey knowing commissioner during the trial of the suit. But this course was not adopted. Assuming that it is a simple case of boundary dispute and a survey knowing commissioner is deputed to measure the plots, even then the dispute between the parties will not be solved unless the question of possession is gone into. I am, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Dey and hold that it is not a simple case of boundary dispute.

( 8 ) THE case is covered by a recent decision of this Court reported in (1984) 1 Orissa LR 560 (Smt. Sobhabati @ Suva Sahu v. Lakshmi Chand ). It was held that the object behind S. 6 of the Act is to discourage persons taking law into their own hands and is based and founded on public policy. It is a summary remedy available to the person in possession of immovable property when he is