Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banwari Lal vs Smt. Sarita Bishnoi on 12 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48266]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 15/2025
Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Nathuram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Bhoop
Colony, Ssb Road, Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sarita Bishnoi W/o Sh. Ripudaman Singh, R/o House
No. 1, Ripudaman House, Near Durgesh Cinema, Sri
Ganganagar, Raj.
2. Nishant Bishnoi S/o Lt. Sh. Ripudaman, R/o House No. 1,
Ripudaman House, Near Durgesh Cinema, Sri
Ganganagar, Raj.
3. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Rampratap, R/o 3 8 Jawahar
Nagar, Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria
Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Gaurav Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Order Reserved On ::: 14/08/2025
Order Pronounced On ::: 12/11/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant revision petition, instituted under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as
"CPC"), has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant assailing
the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024, passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No.2 in Civil Case No. 38/2022.
By the said judgment, the learned court below has decreed the
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48266] (2 of 6) [CR-15/2025]
suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of
1963"), holding them entitled to restoration of possession of the
plot in question.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents
No. 1 and 2 instituted Civil Suit No. 38/2022 (330/2012) under
Section 6 of the Act of 1963, alleging that Late Ripudaman Singh,
husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2, had
purchased land situated in Chak 3E Chhoti, Tehsil and District Sri
Ganganagar in 1979, developed it as Bhoop Colony, and retained
Plot No. 29 measuring 45x50 feet in his ownership. After his
demise, the respondents claimed to have remained in peaceful
possession of the said plot, which was allegedly encroached upon
by the petitioner and his associates despite an earlier decree in
their favour in Civil Suit No. 63/2007. The petitioner, however,
contested the claim, asserting ownership on the strength of a
Patta issued by the UIT, Sri Ganganagar dated 15.07.2006, and
denied any act of dispossession. Upon trial, the learned Additional
District Judge No.2, by judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024,
decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, directing the
petitioner and co-defendant to hand over possession and
restraining them from interference, giving rise to the present
revision petition.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
gone through the documents annexed with the petition.
4. After going through the documents annexed with the
petition, it is apparent that the suit giving rise to the present
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48266] (3 of 6) [CR-15/2025]
revision was one for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the
Act of 1963. Earlier, in the year 2004, the respondents had
instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction, which was decreed
in their favour. Upon the petitioner act of encroachment thereafter,
the decree was duly executed, and possession of the suit plot was
delivered to the respondents through the Nazir of the Court.
Aggrieved by the decree of dispossession, the petitioner filed the
instant revision petition.
5. Before adverting to the details of the matter, it would be apt
to briefly disucss the scope of Section 6 of the Act of 1963. For
ready reference, Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is reproduced herein
below:-
"Section 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable
property.--(1) If any person is dispossessed without his
consent of immovable property otherwise than in due
course of law, he or any person [through whom he has been
in possession or any person] claiming through him may, by
suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other
title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought--
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of
dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in
any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of
any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing
to establish his title to such property and to recover
possession thereof."
6. Section 6 of the Act of 1963 embodies a salutary principle of
law intended to preserve public order and uphold the sanctity of
lawful possession, irrespective of ownership. The provision, in
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48266] (4 of 6) [CR-15/2025]
clear and categorical terms, lays down that no person shall be
dispossessed of immovable property except in accordance with
law, and that even a person in settled possession, though not the
owner, is entitled to protection against forcible or unlawful
dispossession. The essence of this provision is that possession
itself, when lawful or peaceful, is a right recognised and protected
by law, and any person who has been unlawfully ousted may,
within six months of such dispossession, seek recovery of
possession through the civil court. The provision further bars the
defendant from pleading ownership as a defence to justify such
forcible entry, and correspondingly, prohibits the Government from
being sued under this provision. The legislative intent underlying
Section 6 of the Act of 1963 is to discourage self-help and
promote the rule of law, ensuring that no individual takes law into
his own hands to dispossess another, however defective the
latter's title may be. It draws a clear distinction between
ownership and possession, placing emphasis on orderly legal
process rather than might or muscle. What the statute seeks to
secure is not ownership, but the right to remain in undisturbed
possession until a competent court, in appropriate proceedings,
decides otherwise. Therefore, the remedy under Section 6 of the
Act of 1963 is possessory and summary in nature, intended to
restore the status quo ante where possession has been unlawfully
disturbed. The court, while adjudicating such claim, is not required
to examine title but merely whether the plaintiff was in possession
and whether such possession was interfered with or taken away
otherwise than in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48266] (5 of 6) [CR-15/2025]
7. During the trial of the present proceedings, three issues were
framed. The first issue pertained to whether the respondents were
ever in possession of the suit property described in paragraph No.
2 of the plaint prior to filing of the suit. The learned trial court has
elaborately and appropriately discussed this issue in the light of
the evidence adduced, including the testimony of the Nazir
(Exhibit 4), the earlier decree, and the FIR on record. Relying
upon such cogent material, the court below rightly concluded that
the respondents were in settled possession and had been
unlawfully dispossessed. Consequently, Issue No.1 was answered
in their favour.
7.1 Adverting to Issue No. 2, namely whether the respondents
were entitled to recovery of possession, the same was dependent
upon and flowed from the determination of Issue No.1. Once the
factum of possession and subsequent dispossession stood
established, their entitlement to restoration of possession
naturally followed. The learned trial court, therefore, committed
no error in returning a finding in their favour on this count.
7.2 As regards Issue No. 3, concerning the grant of permanent
injunction, the learned trial court observed that if the
petitioner/defendant claims any independent right, title or interest
over the suit property on the strength of the Patta issued by the
UIT, the same shall remain unaffected and open for assertion in
appropriate proceedings. The decree thus passed is just, reasoned
and in consonance with settled legal principles.
8. Coming to the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section
115 CPC, it is well settled that this Court does not sit as a court of
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48266] (6 of 6) [CR-15/2025]
appeal. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate
court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it, or has committed a manifest illegality or material
irregularity in exercise thereof. In the case at hand, the findings
recorded by the learned trial court are based upon due
appreciation of evidence and supported by sound reasoning. No
perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible so as to justify
interference in exercise of revisional powers.
9. The petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
10. The stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
10-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:36:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
