[2025:RJ-JP:2054] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 7/2013 1. Smt Dulari Devi W/o Late Shri Kanwarlal Ji Somani, (Since Deceased) Through Her Lrs- 1/1. Shri Arun Kumar Somani S/o Late Shri Kanwar Lal Ji Somani (Son), R/o 2445, Ridgetop Circle, Ames-1A- 50014 Usa. 1/2. Smt. Manju Taparia D/o Late Shri Kanwar Lal Ji Somani W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Ji Taparia, (Daughter) R/o Station Road, Barmer. 1/3. Smt. Shashi Maheshwari D/o Late Shri Kanwar Lal Ji Somani D/o Dr. Kailash Maheshwari (Daughter), R/o Purani Mills Chouraha, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. 1/4. Shri Ashok Kumar Somani S/o Late Shri Kanwar Lal Ji Somani (Son0., R/o C-12, Tarang Apartment, 19, Patparganj, Delhi. 2. Ashok Kumar Somani S/o Late Shri Kanwarlal Ji Somani, Aged About 55 Years, R/o C-12, Tarang Apartments, 19, Patparganj, Delhi-92. ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus 1. M/s Ami La Ishwardas, Agrasen Bazar, Beawar, District Ajmer Through Shri Suresh Chand (Since Deceased) Shri Kishan Gopal Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Singhal And Shri Radhey Shyam Singhal And Shri Saurabh Singhal (New Partner) Both Are R/o Agrasen Bazar, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Municipal Council, Beawar Through Its Commissioner, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Gupta For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order 15/01/2025 1. Aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 20.10.2012 in Civil Suit No.113/2011 by learned Additional District Judge, Beawar, District [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (2 of 7) [CR-7/2013] Ajmer, instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners- defendants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring judgment in case of Prasantha Banerji vs Pushpa Ashoke Chandani And Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 554 submits that the petitioner-defendant has procured the possession of suit property in pursuant to judgment and decree passed by a competent court of law and also in presence of Sale Amin and police who executed the warrant of possession under the authority of the court. He submits that despite loosing a case for eviction, the respondent- plaintiff has filed a fresh suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, which is not maintainable under the law, therefore, they have moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court and same was dismissed by the trial court. 3. None present for the respondent, despite taking up matter in round two. 4. Even on last few occasion, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record including the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. A perusal of material placed on record indicate that a civil suit no.113/2011 was filed by respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, claiming to be a tenant on the suit property, alleging illegal dispossession on the suit property with help of court nazir and police. As per averment made in the plaint, the process adopted was not a due process, therefore, terming the [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (3 of 7) [CR-7/2013] process to be an illegal one, a suit was filed by the plaintiff with prayer for restoration of possession of the suit property. 7. A perusal of statement made in the plaint clearly indicate that the plaintiff has made it clear that he was dispossessed with help of court staff and police. It is also clear that the plaintiff has not specifically mentioned about the execution of warrant of dispossession issued against him in pursuant to judgment and decree obtained by the petitioners herein. 8. Section 6 of Specific Relief Act and provides that a suit for re-possession or procuring a possession can be filed within six months from the date of dispossession by a person who was dispossessed without adopting due process of law. 9. The object of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act is to ensure speedy remedy to a person who has been unjustly and forcibly dispossessed. A suit under this provision can be filed by: (i) A person dispossessed unlawfully, (ii) Any person claiming through person dispossessed, and (iii) Any person through whom a person dispossessed was in possession. 10. After considering the judgments and legal position of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, all essentials can be summarized as under: (i) A person must be dispossessed of immovable property without his consent; (ii) He must be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law; (iii) Issues on title or ownership or rival contention cannot be raised in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (4 of 7) [CR-7/2013] (iv) A suit can be brought within six months of dispossession, an order or decree passed by a civil court is final and no appeal or review can lie in any court of law; (v) Only remedy is filing revision petition and that too in exceptional cases; (vi) A fresh suit on general terms is not barred by resjudicata as no inquiry is permissible on question of title in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; (vii) A person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act has a remedy to file a regular suit on the basis of title or any other claim. If he or she is successful in subsequent suit then entitled for all relief notwithstanding the adverse order in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. 11. Considering the object of Section 6 as referred herein above, a suit can only be filed by someone, who was dispossessed unauthorizedly and without adopting a process of law. There is no question of examination of title or any other right in a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, but the essential ingredient is the process of dispossession without adopting due process. If someone is dispossessed in pursuant to warrant issued under Order XXI of CPC by a court of law then he has no right to file a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (5 of 7) [CR-7/2013] of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 13. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while deciding any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 15. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 16. In case of Prasantha Banerji vs Pushpa Ashoke Chandani And Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (6 of 7) [CR-7/2013] considered provision under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and held that if any person aggrieved of a decree then he can filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC but a separate suit is not maintainable. Though it does strictly not apply to the instant case but the anology is that a separate suit in such circumstances, when someone was dispossessed in pursuant to judgment and decree passed by a competent court of law, has no right to file a civil suit may be either under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act or under a general law. 17. In case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha (1991) 4 SCC 379 = AIR 1991 SC 2251 while considering provision of order XXI of CPC held that numerous rules provided there under takes care of different situations providing effective remedies not only to judgment-debtors and decree holders but also to objectors (third party). This judgment was further referred by a larger bench in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 418 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another AIR 1977 SC 2421 has considered filing of frivolous, vexatious and cleverly drafted suit and after considering aforesaid, the Supreme Court has held that the suit should be nibbed at the bud. 18. Considering the contentions as raised herein, the revision petition is liable to be allowed and the civil suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 19. In view of discussion made herein above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. An [2025:RJ-JP:2054] (7 of 7) [CR-7/2013] application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner is allowed and the civil suit no.113/2011 is hereby rejected. 20. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Arun/6