NARANDAR B AGARWAL Vs. USMAN HAJI ABBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit property being Godown No. 10 on Plot No. 176. Reti Bunder, Darukhana, Bombay 10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were in exclusive possession of the suit premises, but were dispossessed some time in November, 1981. Therefore, they filed a suit for restoration of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis that they were in possession within six months before the date of the suit and were dispossessed without due process of law. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to other averments made in the plaint.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds and also raised a preliminary contention that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. The City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the suit squarely falls under the provisions of section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and therefore, the Small Cause Court alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and hence passed an order returning the plaint for its presentation to the proper Court. It is this order of the City Civil Court dated 18th of May, 1982 in Notice of Motion No. 1173 dated 12th of March, 1982 in Cause Suit No. 132 of 1982, which is challenged in the present appeal.

(3.) . Shri Gursahani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended before me that the City Civil Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, which was under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. According to Shri Gursahani various averments made in the plaint were in the nature of History and background of the litigation and in substance the suit was filed against the trespasser based on prior possession and subsequent dispossession. Such a suit is wholly covered by section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, the City Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of this Court in (Shivax C. Cambatta v. Sunderdas Ebji) 52 Bom.L.R. 381; (Madhav Prasad Nigam v. Indirabai Chandravarkar) 55 Bom.L.R. 21; (Dattatraya Krishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore) 64 Bom.L.R. 645 and (Pandhari v. Mirabai) 1980 Mh.L.J. 39.