PRASANNA KUMAR SINGH Vs. GOLAK CHANDRA MADHUAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting point relating to scope and ambit of Sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short, 'the Act') is the subject -matter of adjudication in this revision application.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects as presented by the petitioner, would suffice. Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Balasore (presently designated as Civil Judge, Senior Division) for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property, mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs. Plaintiff's case was that he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property in the year 1977. After his induction he had developed the land, got electric power supply to the premises and started a motor repairing garage. The defendants with mala fide intention stopped granting receipts for which the rent due was sent by money orders. On 3 -5 -1993, the defendants with the help of hired goondas demolished the structures and boundary wall constructed by the plaintiff, drove him out of the suit premises and threw away his belongings. In the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') for injuncting the defendants (present respondents) from alienating the suit property and from raising any permanent structure on the suit plot. Defendants filed their objection to the prayer. It was admitted that the plaintiff was a tenant under them, but a plea was taken that the plaintiff had volunatrily vacated the suit premises on 1 -3 -1993 after demolishing the structures and removing the belongings.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. A. Mukherji, learned counsel for petitioner, appeal is a creature of statute and the undisputed position being that an order disposing of an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code can be dealt with in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 (r) thereof, the appeal should have been held to be maintainable. The expression 'order' as appearing in Sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Act cannot be given a restricted meaning to frustrate the intention of Legislature to provide remedy and too technical view should not have been taken. With reference to certain observations of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag arid another v. Mst. Katili and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353, it was submitted that where substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the former has to prevail. It is, further urged that the expression 'order' would only engulf those decisions which are in relation to the suit itself and not outside the scope thereof. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for respondents, on the ether hand, submitted that the language of the act being clear and the legislative intention being in keeping out any order passed under Section 6 out of the umbrella of appeal, the learned District Judge was justified in his conclusion.