JUDGMENT : 

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 for possession has been partly decreed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were defendants No.3 and 4 in the main suit filed by respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as '1963 Act') and the said petitioners were bona-fide purchasers, inasmuch as, they had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 01.06.2012. It is further submitted that the petitioners had taken possession from defendant No.2 and thus, the suit filed by respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 6 of the 1963 Act, against the present petitioners was not maintainable and accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2017, decreeing the suit of respondents No.1 to 3 partly, is against law and deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the trial Court has rightly held that the petitioners are true owners of the property by virtue of the sale deed dated 01.06.2012 and thus, no injunction has been granted against them.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as a revision under Section 115 of the CPC was maintainable. It is further submitted that the impugned order in the present case was passed on 06.09.2017, whereas, the present revision petition had been drafted on 31.03.2018 which is beyond the period of limitation and had been filed after a delay of more than 100 days and there is no application for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that it is a matter of settled law that in the proceedings under Section 6 of the 1963 Act, the sole question which is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession and had been dispossessed from the suit land and the question of title is not to be considered. It is further submitted that in the present case, it had been duly proved on record that respondents No.1 to 3 had a registered mortgage deed dated 05.08.2010 in their favour, which had been duly exhibited as Ex.P2 and a perusal of the same would be show that the mortgage was done along with delivery of possession. It is further submitted that the mutation regarding the said registered mortgage deed was sanctioned on 01.09.2010 which was duly reflected in the jamabandi (Ex.P1) which was for the year 2008-2009 and the present petitioners, even as per their own case, had purchased the suit property on 01.06.2012 which is subsequent to the said mutation entry and thus, it cannot be said that they were not aware of the registered mortgage deed. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of respondents no.1 to 3 and had held the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be entitled to possession of the suit property. It is argued that the present petitioners had forcibly taken the possession from respondents No.1 to 3 on 10.11.2012 and the suit under Section 6 of the 1963 Act was filed within a period of six months from the said dispossession i.e. on 21.11.2012.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that respondents No.1 to 3 had filed a suit under Section 6 of the 1963 Act seeking possession of the suit land measuring 10 bighas. Further prayer was also made in