DEEPTIBALA BEHURA Vs. AFR NIRUPAMA MAHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Petition arises as against the judgments, vide Annexures-3 & 5.

(2.) Short fact involved in the case is that the petitioner along with her mother as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.225/2011 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela for grant of relief of recovery of possession of the area described in the schedule therein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Defendant-O.P. on her appearance filed written statement denying the plaint averments. Trial court framed particular issues relating to maintainability along with other subjects. Trial being concluded, trial court dismissed the suit. Under the premises of no appeal available for the decree passed involving under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision on the file of Additional District Judge, Rourkela. The Civil Revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rourkela expressing no jurisdiction to decide such matter vested in it resulting the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

(3.) Challenging both the orders, Sri A.R.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act contended that filing of appeal involving such decree being restricted, the petitioner had no other option than to file the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Dash alleged that the trial court having failed to appreciate the grounds taken therein arrived at the wrong and illegal impugned order. Challenging the rejection of Revision on the ground of maintainability, Sri Dash apart from taking this Court to different provisions of Specific Relief Act and further taking reference of the decisions in Sanjay Kumar Pandey & others vrs. Gulbahar Sheikh & others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 664 and I.T.C. Ltd. vrs. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4806 submitted that for the decisions involved herein, the Revision at the instance of the petitioner was very much maintainable and the decision of the Additional District Judge is bad in law, which unless is interfered with will set a bad law.