RAMESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / defendant No.2 has filed this petition against the order dated 31.10.2012 whereby his application preferred under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. (Annexure P/7) and application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure P/8) were rejected by the Court below.

(2.) In a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. This application was rejected by the Court below on 26.04.2012 (Annexure P/3). On 21.07.2011, the petitioner filed his written statement. He raised objections regarding maintainability of suit and non-availability of cause of action. He also raised objection on the ground of limitation. It is further contended that as per Order 2 Rule 2 and as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. Written statement is filed as Annexure P/4. The trial Court, thereafter framed seven issues. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the issues so framed, petitioner preferred an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. The trial court by the impugned order dated 31.10.2012 rejected the said application.

(3.) Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, criticized this order and contended that the trial court has framed the issues only on the basis of pleadings of the plaintiff and has not taken care of the specific objections raised in written statement by the petitioner / defendant No.2. He submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting his applications, aforesaid. Another grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order is that his application Annexure P/8 preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C is erroneously rejected. It is contended that by this application, petitioner intended to raise pure legal ground of limitation and therefore, Court below should have allowed this application.