PALANISAMY Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the allowing the I. A. No : 1537 of 2005 which is an application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 for filing additional written statement claiming counter claim, the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

(2.) THE suit is one for the relief of Declaration and for permanent Injunction. THE defendants also filed their written statement. According to the defendants 1 to 3 they are entitled to claim easementary right of cart track on the southern side in s. No. 89/2k and S. No. 89/2l which has been in existence for more than 100 years and the cart track was set apart as common pathway by the vendors of the plaintiff and the defendants. THE said pathway is used to reach their property. THE plaintiff and the 5th defendant obliterated the said cart track on 4. 7. 2005 by ploughing the same and annexed the same along with his land and by cutting the cart track to a depth of 3 feet. Hence, it has become necessary for them to file additional written statement claiming counter claim for declaration and permanent injunction and mandatory injunction over the said cart track.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the alleged cause of action on 4. 7. 2005 is after the suit and therefore Order 8 Rule 6a does not preclude filing of a counter claim after filing of the written statement and there is no necessity to file a separate suit when the plea of right of way has already been raised by the defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement.