JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming inter alia :-
i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to get the possession of House No. 3/7-D Tej Bahadur Sapru Road, Allahabad and delivered back to the petitioner after evicting the respondent No. 5 ;
2. The respondent No. 5 is a private citizen claiming to be erstwhile wife of the petitioner. Decree of divorce is subsisting. The petitioner contended that once in the evening when he came from his duty, found respondent No. 5 in the house, when he entered into the house respondent No. 5 ousted him with the help of two police officials. Seeing no other alternative the petitioner ran from pillar to post but initially did not lodge any first information report. Subsequently a first information report was lodged. Good bad in-different the writ court cannot act as a fact finding court. There was an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which is as follows:-
"(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.
3. But the petitioner did not choose to go on that line otherwise he would have recovered the possession long back. He has choosen a wrong forum. Such forum is available only when the governmental authority in the official capacity dispossesses a person. To that extent ratio of a Full Bench judgment of Orissa High Court , (Raisahav Chandanmool Indrakumar Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors.) is applicable but here the cause of action is against a private citizen and the police authority by their personnel capacity will be hobnobbing with the, private respondents.. In such circumstances, the action on the part of such police personnel cannot be said to be any governmental action. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act fully applies in the case of the petitioner but for no explainable reason the period of instituting suit under section 6 of such Act has been allowed to expire, therefore, under sub Section 4 of Section 6 of the Act, a person can file a suit to establish his title over such property and recover the possession thereof. Having so, regular suit is the appropriate remedy for the purpose of finalization of the dispute. This Court can only make a request to the civil court that the suit can be expeditiously disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit. The petitioner will also be entitled to apply for excluding the period for instituting the suit from the date of making writ petition herein till the date of the certified copy is made ready for delivery, if at all made within the time in the department.
4. Petitioner contended that a suit has been filed by private respondent No. 5 and appeal is made from an interlocutory order of such suit. A writ petition was also filed, which was dismissed for default. Now a restoration application has been made and if the writ petition is restored, the interim order which was there before, will be revived. The interim order was in connection with deletion of name of respondent No. 5 in the record of the municipal corporation. According to us, such argument on the part of the petitioner is not at all attractive because of the reason that mutation cannot give the title nor the scope of section 6 is only restricted about the title, therefore, there is no scope of superseding the ultimate decree of the civil court by negative way. Thus, taking into totality we cannot convince ourselves in entertaining the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
5. However, no order is passed as to costs.
6. This order will not prevent the petitioner to institute the suit and follow the procedure as prescribed under the code.