1. ' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution arises out of a suit filed by respondent, under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession of a house in Abadi Karkhana Gopal Singh, Jandiala Road, Sheikhupura of which he was dispossessed without his consent, and, otherwise than in due course of law. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent on 6-1-1991. Revision filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court by petitioners failed in the Court below on 7-5-1991.
2. ' A house constructed on an area of 5/1-2 Marlas, in village Abadi Karkhana Gopal Singh, Jandiala Road, Sheikhupura belonged to one Hassan Muhammad. He sold it to Malik Noor Muhammad, father of respondent, on 16-12-1981. Malik Noor Muhammad further transferred the house in favour of his son respondent No,1, in March 1982 and gave him its possession. Respondent No,1 was illegally dispossessed from the house on 25-9-1984, by Muhammad Farooq Khan defendant No,2 in the suit, and, petitioner No,11 in this Court. After dispossession of respondent from the house, Muhammad Farooq Khan sold the house to Dogar son of Makhan defendant No,1 in the suit, for a consideration of Rs,22,000 and transferred its possession to him. Petitioners Nos,1 to 10 were successors-in- interest of defendant No,1. On merits, lower Courts are agreed that respondent No,1 was illegally dispossessed from the house in question within six months of the filing of the suit under section 9 of Specific Relief Act by him, and, therefore, was entitled to reinstatement in possession. An order passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is neither appealable nor open to review. Though the remedy in revision was neither expressly nor impliedly excluded by section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, yet interference in it is rare and exceptional because of an existence of an alternate remedy by way of a civil suit on the basis of title under section 8 of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for the High Court in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to embark upon an enquiry for deciding of disputed questions of fact and law, when it is still open to an aggrieved party, in spite of the adverse decision, in section 9 suit, to go to a Civil Court under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of its title and get the appropriate relief. Case in Punjab State Club, Simla v. Municipal Committee, Simla AIR 1959 Punjab 220 supports the view.
3. Upon this view of the matter, interference is denied and petitioners are left to pursue their ordinary remedy at law. It was not denied that the alternate remedy suggested by law was neither inconvenient nor inadequate. In fact, that is the only appropriate remedy.
4. ' In view of the foregoing, writ petition is dismissed summarily.