KISHAN CHAND Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs who challenge the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, which is a composite order disposing of two applications; (a) under Order 23 Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') and second under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) Before adverting to the facts, the learned Judge was well advised to have considered both these applications separately and not to have disposed them of by a common order. It is not an established precedent in dealing with miscellaneous application when they invoke different provisions of law to seek different reliefs to lump them and decide them by a common order since the principles of law involved/facts are different. I find that the manner in which both these petitions have been dealt with is most unsatisfactory and unwarranted in law.

(3.) Adverting to the first application under Order 23 Rule 1 and 3 CPC, the plaintiffs herein had instituted a suit praying for decree for foreclosure declaring them to be the owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.224/1/2, measuring 7-7 bighas, Khata Khatauni No.39/91, situated at Mauza Majthai, Tehsil and District Shimla, coupled with a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from receiving any amount of compensation for acquisition of the land. It is pleaded that "the plaintiffs have recently came to know that the defendants are neither the owners of the land nor have any right, title or interest in the same."