KULDEEP CHAND Vs. RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition, stands, directed against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court., upon, an application bearing CMA No. 676 of 2017, cast under the provisions of Order 12, Rules 1 and 6 read with Order 23, Rule 1 and Sec. 151 of the CPC, wherein, the defendants/appellants/applicant/counter claimants, projected an intention to withdraw the counterclaim, bearing No. 51of 2008, and, also made a further echoing qua theirs admitting the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs, reared by the latter, in, Civil Suit No. 5 of 2008.

(2.) The afore motion was made before the learned First Appellate Court, by, the defendants/appellants/ applicants, who, suffered a decree of eviction, vis-a-vis, the suit premises, (a) and, with, hence the learned trial Court hence recording disaffirmative findings, vis-a-vis, the defendants, hence, holding tenancy rights in the suit property, and, also it recorded disaffirmative findings qua the defendants acquiring title, through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit premises.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendants/petitioners herein/counter-claimants/appellants, contends, (a) that a reading of the phraseology, occurring in Order 12, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, cannot render open a conclusion, other than, qua its provisions being available for recoursings, by any party to the lis, even at the stage, the suit, has progressed upto the appellate stage, given an appeal being, a continuation of the suit. Provisions of Order 12, Rules 1 and 6 read as under:-