In Brief
A shop owner sought recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act after alleged dispossession, claiming a partnership right. Two lower courts dismissed the injunction application, finding the defendant was an established tenant since 2004. The High Court reversed these concurrent findings in revision. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that Section 115 CPC revision cannot be used to overturn interlocutory orders or reverse findings of fact without addressing the appellate court's reasoning. The Court restored the lower courts' judgments and directed speedy trial completion within six months.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.