Arun Madan, J.
1. By this revision petition, the defendant petitioners (Laxman Singh and Shivnarain Singh) have assailed the judgment dated 17.2.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Sawaimadhopur decreeing the plaintiff respondent's Civil Suit seeking relief under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for dispossession of the defendants from the suit property.
2. In the suit, a decree was sought by the plaintiff on the assertions that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 (present petitioners) had dispossessed forcibly on the intervening night of 11th and 12th July, 1996. This suit was contested by asserting in the written statement inter-alia that the suit property has since been valued at more than Rs. 30,000/-, the Court of Munsif where the plaintiff had filed suit on 21st July, 1976, had no jurisdiction and accordingly while deciding such an objection vide order dated 8th January, 1980 the Munsif Sawaimadhopur returned the aforesaid suit to the plaintiff for being presented to the competent court, and pursuant thereto the plaintiff presented this suit on 18th January, 1980 before the District Judge Sawaimadhopur under Section 9 of the Act for dispossession of the defendants, to which the defendants again filed written statement on 20th May, 1980, denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. On the basis of the pleadings six issues were framed. Plaintiff examined seven witnesses in support of their pleadings and produced documentary evidence (Ex.1 to Ex.20). Contrarily, the defendants (petitioners) examined 17 witnesses and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D-1 to 13) apart from other Exhibits A1 to A10. However, on 18.12.1992 since the suit was transferred by the District Judge, Sawaimadhopur to the Court of Munsif, Sawaimadhopur, who by his judgment dated 17.10.1996 dismissed the suit against which, the plaintiff had preferred a revision petition before this Court. This Court while allowing that revision had set aside dismissal of the suit and remanded the matter back to the trial court for decision of the suit in the light of provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Upon remand to the Civil Judge (JD), Sawaimadhopur, the suit was taken up but before commencement of hearing the learned District Judge vide his order dated 1.11.2000 transferred the suit to the court of Civil Judge (SD), Sawaimadhopur, who in turn decreed the plaintiffs suit by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision.
3. Before the admission of this petition and issuing any show cause, Shri S.M. Ali put his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff resisting to any stay order against the impugned decree and further raising preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the revision petition on the assertions inter-cdia that since this revision has been filed without paying ad valorem court fee on Rs. 25,000/- and further because this is a revision petition against the decree granted by the trial court for wrongful dispossession of a person otherwise than in due course of law and the suit was based only on the fact of dispossession, it is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, especially when Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any decree passed in a suit by person dispossessed of immovable property nor shall any review of such decree be allowed. To support his contention Shri S.M. Ali has placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab High Court in Walaiti Ram v. Govind Ram .
4. Per Contra, Shri Dalip Singh learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents has contended that this revision petition being properly valued and paid with court fee as per schedule-II of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 and as per Article 11(p) of the aforesaid Sch-II, Rs. 10/- is the prescribed court fee for the revision petition presented to the High Court under-Section 115 C.P.C., or under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suit or proceeding if the value of suit exceeds Rs. 1000/-. Hence, according to Mr. Dalip Singh, a revision petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed for want of not properly valued or paid with court fees.
5. His further contention is that the impugned decree itself smacks of material illegality and lack of jurisdiction owing to the suit being barred by limitation under Section 6 of the Act.
Section 6 of the Act reads as under:
6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property-- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought-
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government.(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.
6. As regards objection raised by Shri S.M. Ali as to the court fees, I find substance in the contention that the revision against the decree of the trial court can only be filed after paying ad valorem court fee on the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid in the suit and/or in earlier revision petition is not sufficient, inasmuch as this revision petition cannot be allowed to be presented without payment of ad valorem court fees, because as per the definition of 'decree' under Section 2(2) C.P.C. it is plain that when a suit is finally adjudicated upon it expressly means conclusively determination of the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit, and in the case at hand, the trial Court finally adjudicated and determined the controversy in the suit for restoration of his possession having been taken by the defendants without process of law. Therefore, I find no substance and merit in the contention of Shri Dalip Singh that court fee paid Rs. 10/- for the revision petition is sufficient by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (p) Article 11 of Sch-II of Rajasthan Court Fees Act, which is not applicable to the case at hand, being petition against the decree.
7. After having considered rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this revision petition having been admittedly filed against a decree in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act by a person dispossessed of immovable property is not maintainable being barred by provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act. according to which review of any order or decree passed in the suit of a person who had been dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise in due course of law, cannot be allowed inasmuch as even an appeal against such decree passed in a suit instituted under Section 6 of the Act shall not lie.
8. In the present suit the trial court under the impugned judgment after having properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the parties has categorically concluded that it was an admitted case of both the parties as is evident from the pleading in the written statement of the defendant to the present suit that the defendant had filed a suit (plaint marked as Ex.2) against the present plaintiffs for possession of the suit property on 23.7.1971 and before instituting such a suit by defendant, the defendant had also admitted in para 5 of plaint (Ex.2) to have sent a legal notice dated 9.5.1971 for handing over possession of the suit property, whereafter defendant's suit vide order sheet dated 9.10.1976 (Ex.5) was dismissed on the application dated 31.7.1976 (Ex.4) of the present plaintiff which was not contested by the defendants obviously because during the pendency of their suit they acquired possession of the suit property by dispossessing the present plaintiffs on the intervening night of 11th and 12th July, 1976 as was pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs in the present suit.
9. I do not find that the learned trial court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion so also while holding the plaintiffs suit within limitation by extending the benefit of provisions of Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the time from 21.7.1976 to 8.1.1980, during which admittedly the earlier suit remain pending before the Munsif Sawai Madhopur and which was returned back to the plaintiffs to file the present suit on 18.1.1980.
10. As a result of the above discussion, this revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.