An appeal or review is not maintainable against any order or decree passed in a summary suit for recovery of possession instituted under the specific statutory provision, as the law explicitly bars such appellate remedies.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Suit for recovery of possession - Summary proceedings - Bar on appeal - Statutory mandate under Section 6(3) explicitly prohibits any appeal or review against an order or decree passed in a suit instituted under this section. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant initiated a suit for recovery of possession, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The appellant subsequently filed a second appeal before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the suit was a summary proceeding under the relevant statute, which expressly bars appellate remedies.

Issues: Whether an appeal is maintainable against a judgment and decree passed in a summary suit for possession under the specific statutory provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Given the clear statutory prohibition against appeals in summary suits for possession, the court held that the appeal is non-maintainable and devoid of legal merit.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. condonation of delay granted upon sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background and procedural history of the possession dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
3. section 6(3) of the specific relief act bars appeals against summary possession judgments. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

CM-565-C-2026

1. The applicant/appellant has preferred the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for the condonation of a 66 days delay encountered in the filing of the present appeal. The applicant seeks the indulgence of this Court to overlook the procedural lapse in timing to allow the matter to be heard on its merits.

2. Upon due consideration of the grounds and averments set forth in the application, this Court finds that sufficient cause has been shown to justify the delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed, and the delay of 66 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

3. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSA’) has been preferred to assail the concurrent findings, judgments, and decrees of the courts below. Specifically, the appellant challenges the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2025 rendered by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, which dismissed the first appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula.

4. The litigation originated from a suit for recovery of possession instituted by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellant’s claim is predicated on the assertion of long- standing, uninterrupted, and peaceful possession of the suit property since the year 2004. It is further alleged that the appellant was forcibly and illegally dispossessed from the property on 15.02.2019 by the respondents- defendants and their associates, who purportedly removed the sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the shop premises during the course of the dispossession.

5. The respondents-defendants contested the suit, categorically denying that the plaintiff ever occupied the booth in question or conducted a furniture business therefrom since 2004. The defense maintained that the answering defendants acquired the booth from the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) through a public auction. They further asserted that actual physical possession was formally delivered to them by the officials of HUDA and denied the occurrence of the alleged dispossession on 15.02.2019.

6. Following a comprehensive and careful scrutiny of the pleadings and the rival contentions advanced by the respective parties, this Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the points of controversy. For the purpose of a systematic and legally coherent adjudication, the following issues were framed for determination::-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory as well as permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD

9. Relief.

7. Both parties were accorded comprehensive opportunities to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Following the conclusion of final arguments, the learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit. The subsequent appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed by the first appellate court, leading to the filing of the present RSA.

8. It is pertin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document