Delhi High Court
Economy Sales vs Delhi Automobiles Ltd. on 30 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P.No. 108/2014
% 30th July, 2014
ECONOMY SALES ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Advocate
VERSUS
DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD. ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is filed against
the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2014 of the trial court dismissing the suit
filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be in settled possession of certain
front portion of the property no.1, Skindera Road, New Delhi alongwith the
room measuring 10'x10'in the main building. The settled possession was
stated to be for the last 20 years. The subject suit was filed in July, 2004
alleging dispossession of the petitioner/plaintiff on 25.6.2004.
CRP 108/2014 Page 1 of 4
3. A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not based on
title. It is only based on prior possession. The suit under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act cannot however be filed against a person who claims
title of the suit premises in accordance with law, once the petitioner/plaintiff
fails to file clinching evidence to show his possession.
4. The court below notes that the portion of the suit property being
point B in the site plan Ex.P-1 was demolished by NDMC on 12.1.2001, and
this has been deposed to by the witness of the NDMC, DW-2 Sh.Raj Kumar
Sharma(inadvertently mentioned as DW-1), the noting being proved as
Ex.DW1/1. This aspect is stated in para 28 of the impugned judgment. The
court below also notes in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment the
admission of the petitioner/plaintiff that it had removed all its goods from
the suit premises and that if the case of the petitioner/plaintiff was that its
employee Manoj was staying in the premises, the said employee Sh. Manoj
ought to have been produced in evidence, but admittedly Sh. Manoj was not
summoned or produced to depose on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. Also,
no other employee of the petitioner/plaintiff was summoned to depose the
possession of the petitioner/plaintiff.
CRP 108/2014 Page 2 of 4
5. I may note that the original owners of the property had sold the
suit property to the defendant/respondent who were forced to file a suit for
specific performance, and ultimately the original owners had to transfer the
title of the entire property, including the disputed portions with the
petitioner/plaintiff, to the respondent/defendant, and consequently, since the
petitioner/plaintiff claims through the original owners, and not an
independent title, petitioner/plaintiff would have no right to stay in the suit
premises.
6. The object of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was to ensure
that no one takes law in his own hands to dispossess a person from a settled
possession, however, the person in possession, the petitioner/plaintiff in this
case, does not lead clinching evidence to show that he is in possession
within six months prior to filing of the suit and does not lead the best
evidence of the employee Manoj who was stated to be staying in the suit
premises, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment because trial
court can by appreciating the evidence come to one possible and plausible
conclusion and in doing so, the trial court has not acted beyond its
jurisdiction or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with illegality or material
irregularity.
CRP 108/2014 Page 3 of 4
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue before this
Court that the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 7
Rule 14 CPC, though admittedly after the evidence of both the parties was
complete, to bring on record the legal notice dated 16.10.2001 sent to the
petitioner/plaintiff by the Advocate of the respondent/defendant, and which
shows the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff, however, I note that
evidence cannot be led to fill in lacunae in a case after the evidence of both
the parties has completed, and more so in a suit under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act where possession is claimed not on the basis of any
right, title or interest in the suit property but merely on prior possession. In
the facts of the present case, therefore, I do not find that any illegality is
committed by the trial court in dismissing the application vide its order dated
21.8.2013 and which order has also been challenged in the present petition.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
