GOKULA CHANDRA DAS Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the defendants in the Court below, have filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda in T.S. No. 16 of 2000 rejecting the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to introduce the counterclaim by way of amendment of the written statement.

(2.) The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the opposite parties being the plaintiffs, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurda registered as Title Suit No. 16 of 2000 stating that one Narasingh'a Panigrahi was the owner in possession of Sabik Plot No. 449/1139 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 438 measuring an area of Ac. 0.058 dec. under Khata No. 141 of Mouza Sanapalla and in order to meet his legal necessities, the recorded owner, namely, Narasingha Panigrahi sold the suit land along with other properties to Pravakar Pradhan by registered sale deed dated 21.10.1963 and delivered possession. Therefore, Pravakar Pradhan, who was the father of the plaintiffs, was the rightful owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, the plaintiffs have become the owner in possession, in the R.O.R. of 1961, the suit land was recorded in the names of Batakrushna Dash (father of the present defendants) and Nilamani Devi. Pravakar Pradhan filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1964 in the Court of Munsif, Khurda and during pendency of the said suit, Batakrushna Dash died and his widow and five sons were substituted and ultimately the suit ended in compromise between the parties on 01.08.1966. According to the plaintiffs, Pravakar Pradhan being the true owner is in possession of the suit land and the defendants were not to disturb his possession. In spite of compromise decree, since the defendants disturbed the possession of the plaintiffs, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., was initiated and the defendants took a plea disputing the title of the plaintiffs and denying the decree passed in the said suit. Therefore, the present suit bearing Title Suit No. 16 of 2000 has been filed by Pravakar Pradhan seeking permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant-petitioners' case is that Narasingha Panigrahi was not the owner of the suit land. The plaintiffs have not acquired any title over the suit land by virtue of the so called sale deed executed by Narasingha Panigrahi and the compromise decree, which was passed in T.S. No. 12 of 1964, being a fraudulent one, the same cannot bind defendant Nos. 3 to 5, who were minors and the provisions under Order 32, Rule 7 CPC have not been complied with as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not put their signatures in any compromise petition, thereby the compromise decree is not binding on the defendants and the same was not for the benefit of the minors. Apart from the same, it is stated that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land and they have filed a petition to adduce certain documents of the decree in the previous suit and some rent receipts, to which the defendants have filed objection. Similarly, the defendants also filed a petition to call for the previous suit records. By order dated 30.04.2009 the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs and rejected the application of the defendants. Then the defendants filed W.P. (C) No. 10592 of 2009: This Court by order dated 29.10.2009 disposed of the same with a direction to the defendants to file a better petition. Thereafter, the defendants by giving better particulars, filed a petition and the same was rejected. Again the defendants filed W.P. (C) No. 11751 of 2010 and by order dated 15.07.2011 the said writ petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to call for the records of the previous suit. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the trial Court called for records and the defendants on inspection of the same, found that several illegalities have been committed while obtaining the decree byway of compromise in T.S. No. 12 of 1964. After inspection of records, the defendants filed a petition for amendment of the written statement to introduce counter claim and the same was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2012 under Annexure-5 holding that the counter claim is barred by limitation. Hence this petition.