16 06.03. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2026 IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Ct. No.04 Ab CO 3 of 2026 Suresh Rava @ Suresh Rabha and another Vs.

Jerosalim Ekka and another.

---------------

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, Mr. Mayank Bhandari, Mr. Ved Rai, Mr. Binayak Bandopadhyay.

… for the petitioners.

Mr. Arnab Saha.

… for the opposite parties.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar dated November 6, 2025. By the said judgment and decree, the learned Court below passed a decree on contest, directing the plaintiff to get possession of the suit premises, occupied by the defendants.

2. The revisional application was opposed by Mr. Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, on the ground that even though the suit was not filed as one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter in short „said Act‟), the said judgment and decree went into the realm of a regular suit deciding title of the parties on account whereof the same cannot be construed as a judgment and decree under Section 6 of the said Act.

3. A mere passing remark in the judgment relating to an inference that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the said Act would not make the same so, as the plaintiff had not made out a case for the suit to be under Section 6 of the said Act. Hence, if the same is not a suit under Section 6, the present revisional application is not maintainable.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, had filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree, which was, however, subsequently withdrawn due to some technical reasons. According to Mr. Ghosh, it is true that the suit could not have been treated to be as one under Section 6 of the said Act, particularly in view of Issues VI and VII, as framed by the learned Court and reflected from the said judgment.

5. I have heard the learned Advocates of both parties and considered the records.

6. The sine qua non for a suit under Section 6 of the said Act is twofold. First, the plaintiff has to show that he was in possession of the suit premises and second, that he had been illegally dispossessed from the suit premises.

7. It is an admitted proposition that title does not have any role to play in a suit under Section 6 of the said Act. The rights of the parties to be adjudicated are merely that of possession. If the plaintiff can show that he was in possession of the suit premises and was illegally evicted or dispossessed, he is entitled to decree under Section 6 of the said Act. This, irrespective of the fact that he may or may not be the owner of the premises.

8. Thus, the judgment of the learned Court below dated November 6, 2025 cannot be construed as one under Section 6 of the said Act as Issues VI and VII, which are set out herein below:

“VI. Whether plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over suit property?

VII. Whether defendants have right, title, interest and possession over suit property?”

clearly demonstrate that the Court had gone into the title of both the plaintiff and defendants qua the suit property. Such an adjudication as that of title clearly means that the said suit was not filed under Section 6 of the said Act and a mere passing reference or inference by the Court cannot clothe a particular suit with the colour or flavour of a suit under Section 6 of the said Act.

9. Since, both parties are ad idem that this is not a suit under Section 6 of the said Act, it cannot be held that the petitioners do not have a remedy in law. Thus, the revisional application is dismissed as not maintainable.

10. I make it clear that this dismissal will not be an impediment on the petitioners to proceed with an appeal before an appropriate Court to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court.

11. With these observations, the revisional application is dismissed.

12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

13. Urgent P