BOHTI Vs. MANI RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 28th January, 1987 whereby the plaintiff was allowed to examine certain witnesses as mentioned in the application dated 2nd January, 1987.

(2.) Ordinarily this Court does not interfere in revisional jurisdiction in such like orders, but admittedly the plaintiff has filed suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession; whereas the evidence sought to be produced by the impugned order relates to the title of the plaintiff. It could not be disputed that the question of title cannot be decided in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. That being so the application filed by the plaintiff for producing the evidence to prove the alleged will, if any, was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) It is strange that a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is pending since December, 1983. The only issue to be decided in this suit is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property within the time prescribed or not. Any other issue framed by the trial Court was irrelevant and will be deemed to have been struck off. The only issue to be tried now in the suit will be as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property within the time provided under section 6 of the Act. With these observations, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. It is further directed that the suit be disposed of within three months on the next date of hearing fixed by the trial Court. If no date is fixed earlier, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 10th June, 1987. The evidence to be produced by the parties will be produced at their own responsibility and they will only be entitled to one opportunity for that purpose.