Uttarakhand High Court
Minakshi vs Sohan Lal And Another. The Said on 31 March, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 749 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the
petitioner.
The petitioner before this Court is a
plaintiff, in a proceeding, which was drawn by
her by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 2016,
Minakshi Vs. Sohan Lal and another. The said
Suit, which was instituted before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Dehradun, was for the
purposes of, for grant of a decree of permanent
injunction in relation to the property, which was
described at the foot of the plaint. The said Suit
was instituted on 15th February, 2016.
The defendant of the Civil Suit, preferred
by the petitioner, had instituted Suit No. 190 of
2016, Sohan Lal Vs. Minakshi, under Section 6
of the Specific Relief Act.
The issue, which ultimately culled out
during the proceedings of the Suit No. 190 of
2016, as would be apparent from the order,
which has been put to challenge before this Court
is that by virtue of the impugned orders, the
petitioner's right to cross examine the witnesses
of the proceedings under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, have been denied by the
Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Dehradun. Hence, the Writ Petition.
As far as the proceedings under Section 6
of the Specific Relief Act are concerned, they are
summary in nature, and as per the specific
provisions incorporated under the Specific Relief
Act, particularly, a reference may be had to
Section 5, the applicability of the CPC has been
made applicable, limited to the extent for the
purposes of recovery of possession, as a
consequence of the judgment, to be rendered in
the proceedings under the Act itself.
This Court is of the view that once the
Legislature by its specific intention contained in
part-II of the said Act, by its Section 5 has
attracted the provisions contained under CPC
only to a limited extent for the purposes of
recovery of possession, the reasonable collary,
which follows is that the remaining provisions of
CPC, by its implications have been excluded to
be made applicable over the proceedings which
are contemplated under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act, and hence, in that view of the matter,
the provisions of cross examination of the
witnesses in a summary proceeding provided
under Section 6, would not be applicable.
In that view of the matter, and coupled
with the fact that since the Act itself reserves the
right of the person affected by the judgment
rendered in the proceedings under Section 6 to
get their rights adjudicated in a regular
proceedings will itself give the proceedings a
shape of the proceedings under Section 6 to be
summary proceedings, where the detailed trial by
examination of the witnesses under Order 18 is
not contemplated.
In that view of the matter, I am not
inclined to interfere in the impugned orders by
virtue of which, the petitioner's opportunity to
cross examine witnesses in the proceedings under
Section 6 has been rejected.
Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 31.03.2021
Shiv
