VISHWA NATH Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 21.8.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in CMA No.437/6 of 2017, in Civil Suit No.248/1 of 2015, whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file the counter claim was dismissed.

(2.) The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from digging the land, raising any type of construction and from alienating the suit land in any manner. As per the plaintiff, late Smt. Prabhi, was recorded owner-in-possession over the land measuring 2-16 bighas, comprised in Khasra No.291/1, 294, kita 2, situated in village Bakain, Pargana Baseh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. Smt. Prabhi, reported missing since so many years and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant late Shri Ram Prakash by practicing the fraud with the revenue authorities have got the revenue entries in the column of possession in his name, however, Smt. Prabhi Devi, was exclusive owner-in-possession over the suit land and she has neither inducted late Shri Ram Prakash, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants as tenant nor any possession was over delivered to late Shri Ram Prakash by her in any manner and as such, revenue entries in the name of late Shri Ram Prakash predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and now in the name of defendants No.1 and 2 in the column of possession, vide mutation No.529, dated 24.4.2013, are illegal, wrong and null and void. The defendants and their predecessor-in-interest Shri Ram Prakash have got no right, title and interest in any manner in the suit land and other successor of Smt. Prabhi Devi is also having equal right and interest according to their respective shares in the suit land.

(3.) The petitioner-defendant No.1 maintained an application for seeking permission to file the counter claim in the civil suit, whereby the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 21.8.2017.