LAWS(HPH)-2022-8-95

RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On August 18, 2022
RAMESH CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been maintained by the petitioner for setting aside impugned order dtd. 25/9/2021, passed in Case No.377/2021, titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P and Others, passed by the learned Court below, wherein the learned Court below instead of granting permission to file counter claim without serving the notice, as required under Sec. 80 CPC, has rejected the counter claim filed by the petitioner-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants).

(2.) As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma, (respondent No.3 herein) maintained a suit under Specific Relief Act, against the defendants. The case was listed for 1/3/2021 for filing written statement, when the defendants under compelling circumstances had filed written statement in support of their case and also filed counter claim, wherein they challenge the alleged demarcation and alleged notice issued by defendant No.2/State. The defendant alongwith counter claimant has filed an application, under Sec. 80 (2) CPC, seeking permission to file counter claim against defendants No.1 and 2 without serving legal notice, as required under Sec. 80 CPC.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that there is a boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6 whereas land owned by defendants No.3 to 6 had already been demarcated in accordance with law and iron angles were installed on boundaries during the demarcation. Defendant No.4 is a law abiding person and due to the negligence on the part of plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma and defendants No.1 and 2/State, defendant No.4 could not raise construction on the spot and suffered huge financial loss and damages since 2017 and only for this reason defendant No.4 has filed counter claim against the plaintiff i.e. Akshay Kumar Verma and defendants No.1 and 2/State challenged the alleged demarcation and notice and claimed damages, but the learned Court below in a wrong and illegal manner dismissed an application, under Sec. 80 (2) CPC.