ASHOK KUMAR Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the defendant/petitioner herein claiming therein a decree for declaration besides a decree for injunction with respect to the suit property. The suit was contested by defendant No.1/petitioner herein by his instituting a written statement thereto. However, during the pendency of the suit, an application cast under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. The relevant portions of the apposite application, comprised in paragraphs No.3 and 7 thereof are extracted hereinafter :-

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1, has contended with vigour that the impugned order is gripped with a critical legal infirmity, comprised in the fact of the learned trial Court, though proceeding "to" within the domain of sub-rule (3), Rule 1 Order 23 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted herein, hence, pronounce the impugned verdict, "whereas", none of the ingredients contained therein being evidently satiated. The provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under :-

(3.) For appreciating the aforesaid submission made before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/petitioner, it is imperative to extract the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC:-