AMIT KUMAR Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 31.01.2014, dismissing their application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here -in -after referred to as the "CPC") for seeking permission to file the counter -claim.

(2.) IN short, the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he has purchased the property measuring 312 square yards in Khasra No.575/5 min vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.1980. The said property/plot is allegedly having two side gates, one from the main road and other from the side/gali falling in Khasra No.3507/575. Khasra No.3507/575 is shown in the revenue record as Rasta and the plaintiff has been enjoying the said passage without any hindrance and objection. It is further alleged that the defendants have started raising objection and creating obstructions in the use of the disputed Gali by the plaintiff and is threatening that defendant no.1 has purchased the land falling under Gali in Khasra No.3507/575 from Gopal Krishan though they have no right to sell the land of the common passage. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has requested the defendants not to create any hindrance or make any construction over the land of the common passage but they are very adamant and influential persons and not paying any heed to the genuine requests of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating any hindrance in the use of common passage and blocking it by way of raising any construction.

(3.) THE defendants filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Lateron, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC, setting up a counter -claim, alleging that cause of action has accrued to them on 06.10.2011 after filing of the written statement when the plaintiff forcibly and unlawfully break down the wall from the eastern side of his house and fixed a door therein for forcibly using the private passage belonging to the defendants. The application was filed on 07.10.2011 in which the prayer was made for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to close down the door. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 8 Rule 6 -A and 6 -B of the CPC for rejection of the counter claim. On the other hand, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement to entertain the counter -claim which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order.