KISHAN LAL Vs. RK ASSOCIATES AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent had instituted the suit (CS no.304/2009) against the petitioner (impleaded as the first defendant) alleging wrongful dis-possession from the subject property described as plot admeasuring 200 sq. yds. situate in the revenue estate of Village Zamrudpur, Delhi. By the said suit, the first respondent (plaintiff) prayed for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits from the petitioner (the defendant). On the application moved by M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the said party claiming right and interest in the subject property was impleaded as the second defendant. Later, the said second defendant was substituted by the second respondent, it having statedly acquired right, title and interest from the former and, thus, having stepped into its shoes. Concededly, the plaintiff of the suit had pleaded a case for the aforementioned reliefs also on the basis of title. The suit was put to trial and was decided by judgment dated 05.03.2011. The Additional District Judge, at that stage, in the final judgment, observed that the impleadment of the second respondent was erroneous and resultantly deleted it from the array of parties. He decreed the suit granting the reliefs of recovery of possession of the subject property and directed payment of damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the date of wrongful dispossession till restoration of the possession.

(2.) The revision petition at hand was filed by the first defendant of the suit against whom the aforementioned decree was passed, inter alia, on the ground that the same is perverse and based on no evidence, it being impermissible for the civil Court to grant mesne profits in proceedings primarily taken out under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(3.) The copy of the plaint of the suit in which the impugned judgment was passed has been filed (Annexure B). A bare perusal shows that it was not based on the provision contained in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 196 Even if the suit has been so treated, it has to be borne in mind that the recovery of possession was not the only relief claimed. The plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction and mesne profits. In these circumstances, the judgment cannot be challenged by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this court in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 196 The appropriate remedy is by a regular civil appeal under Section 96 CPC.