(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of both the appeal as well as cross objections. The regular second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C was filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Solan, dated 15.12.1999 vide which he had reversed the judgment and decree dated, 20.11.1998 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan vide which he had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for mandatory injunction as against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they are owners of Truck No.HPA-1194, which was insured with the Insurance Company and was valid up to 29.1.1986. The said vehicle was damaged in fire on 1.7.1985. The matter qua loss of the vehicle was brought to the notice of defendants No. 3 and 4 with the request to release the claim. However, the claim was not paid on one pretext or the other. The defendants on 21.1.1991 informed the plaintiffs that the claim of the plaintiffs for insurance was turned down on the ground that the case of accident was manipulated one . The suit for mandatory injunction was accordingly filed directing the defendants to pay the Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? insurance amount of '.1,80,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- as damages/ interest from the date of accident till its payment.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD