In Brief
A shop owner sued for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act after being dispossessed. The trial court and appellate court found the original tenant had established a prima facie case. The High Court, in revision, set aside these concurrent findings, relying on a police complaint about dispossession. The Supreme Court held that revision petitions cannot challenge interlocutory orders and must be limited to correcting jurisdictional errors. Setting aside concurrent findings without addressing their reasoning violated revisional principles. The appeal was allowed and the lower courts' judgments restored, with directions to complete the suit within six months.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.