JASVINDER SINGH NARULA Vs. KULTAR SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.07.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4, Mandi,District Mandi,H.P, whereby an application having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein to strike out the written statement and counter claim of respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1), came to be dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, rather same appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and law and as such, same needs to be upheld.

(3.) It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 while responding to the suit having been filed by the plaintiff, categorically stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has made illegal encroachment adjoining to his house on the land of the replying defendant recently and defendant No.1 reserves his right to file a separate suit for possession after obtaining proper demarcation and spot map. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit inter se parties, defendant No.1 obtained demarcation, wherein plaintiff was allegedly found to have encroached upon the land of defendant No.1. Since, the plaintiff was alleged to have encroached upon the land of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 while praying for amendment in the written statement also sought permission from the Court to raise counter claim, which plea was accepted by the learned Court below.