Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----S. 9--- Restoration of possession of immovable property---Suit by a person dispossessed---Scope and limitation. Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for restoration of possession of land, alleging dispossession without due course of law during the pendency of a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence, being barred by limitation, and absence of cause of action. Held, that under Section 9, the plaintiff must establish dispossession from immovable property within six months of the alleged act, irrespective of title. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim of dispossession with either oral or documentary evidence. Revenue records contradicted the plaintiff’s claim. The suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and upheld by the revisional Court. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----S. 42--- Declaratory relief---Consequential relief---Requirement to amend suit during pendency. Plaintiff initially filed a suit under Section 42 for cancellation of a gift deed and, during its pendency, alleged forcible dispossession of the suit land. Held, that under Section 42, a plaintiff is required to seek consequential relief, such as possession, by amending the declaratory suit. Filing a separate suit under Section 9 during the pendency of the declaratory suit is impermissible as both remedies could and should have been pursued together. The Trial Court dismissed the Section 9 suit, and such dismissal was found justified. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 115--- Revisional jurisdiction---Scope and exercise of powers. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., is confined to instances where subordinate courts have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, or acted with material irregularity or illegality. In the present case, no such jurisdictional defect, illegality, or irregularity was identified in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere in the findings of the subordinate courts. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----Limitation period for filing a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act---Failure to adhere to statutory period---Effect. Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for restoration of possession must be filed within six months of the alleged dispossession. In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to establish the exact date of dispossession or prove it through credible evidence. The Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit for being barred by limitation was upheld by the High Court. -----Disposition: Revision petition dismissed for lack of substance. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad, upheld. No costs were awarded.