Economy Sales v. Delhi Automobiles Ltd.

1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is filed against the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2014 of the trial court dismissing the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be in settled possession of certain front portion of the property no.1, Skindera Road, New Delhi alongwith the room measuring 10’x10’in the main building. The settled possession was stated to be for the last 20 years. The subject suit was filed in July, 2004 alleging dispossession of the petitioner/plaintiff on 25.6.2004. 2014:DHC:3589

3. A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not based on title. It is only based on prior possession. The suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot however be filed against a person who claims title of the suit premises in accordance with law, once the petitioner/plaintiff fails to file clinching evidence to show his possession.

4. The court below notes that the portion of the suit property being point B in the site plan Ex.P-1 was demolished by NDMC on 12.1.2001, and this has been deposed to by the witness of the NDMC, DW-2 Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma(inadvertently mentioned as DW-1), the noting being proved as Ex.DW1/1. This aspect is stated in para 28 of the impugned judgment. The court below also notes in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment the admission of the petitioner/plaintiff that it had removed all its goods from the suit premises and that if the case of the petitioner/plaintiff was that its employee Manoj was staying in the premises, the said employee Sh. Manoj ought to have been produced in evidence, but admittedly Sh. Manoj was not summoned or produced to depose on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. Also, no other employee of the petitioner/plaintiff was summoned to depose the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. I may note that the original owners of the property had sold the suit property to the defendant/respondent who were forced to file a suit for specific performance, and ultimately the original owners had to transfer the title of the entire property, including the disputed portions with the petitioner/plaintiff, to the respondent/defendant, and consequently, since the petitioner/plaintiff claims through the original owners, and not an independent title, petitioner/plaintiff would have no right to stay in the suit premises.

6. The object of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was to ensure that no one takes law in his own hands to dispossess a person from a settled possession, however, the person in possession, the petitioner/plaintiff in this case, does not lead clinching evidence to show that he is in possession within six months prior to filing of the suit and does not lead the best evidence of the employee Manoj who was stated to be staying in the suit premises, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment because trial court can by appreciating the evidence come to one possible and plausible conclusion and in doing so, the trial court has not acted beyond its jurisdiction or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue before this Court that the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, though admittedly after the evidence of both the parties was complete, to bring on record the legal notice dated 16.10.2001 sent to the petitioner/plaintiff by the Advocate of the respondent/defendant, and which shows the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff, however, I note that evidence cannot be led to fill in lacunae in a case after the evidence of both the parties has completed, and more so in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act where possession is claimed not on the basis of any right, title or interest in the suit property but merely on prior possession. In the facts of the present case, therefore, I do not find that any illegality is committed by the trial court in dismissing the application vide its order dated 21.8.2013 and which order has also been challenged in the present petition.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib