LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-173

PARAS RAM @ PARSE Vs. SHEOJI RAM

Decided On April 26, 2010
Paras Ram @ Parse Appellant
V/S
Sheoji Ram and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the court below) has laid challenge to an order dated 01.12.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, by which two preliminary issues framed with regard to maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the court below) on the ground of limitation and on the ground of suit being improperly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, were decided against him.

(2.) The facts relevant to decide the present petition are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and respondents No. 2 to 4 (defendants No. 2 to 4 in the court below), praying inter alia for a decree of declaration that he is entitled to reconstruct an intervening wall of House No. 254, Village Jharoda Kalan, Delhi, constructed pursuant to a judgment dated 26.03.1993 passed in an earlier suit instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, registered as Suit No. 160/82. Relief of mandatory and permanent injunction was also sought by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to 4 for restoration of the intervening wall and for restraining them from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit premises by him.

(3.) The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the trial court on 12.08.1996. Summons were issued to the defendants in the suit. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 (defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit), they were proceeded against ex-parte on 09.01.1998. A written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1. In his written statement, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 raised a number of preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Vide order dated 27.07.1999, two preliminary issues were framed by the trial court with regard to the maintainability of the suit in the following manner: