MANJU DEVI Vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 31.8.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 560 of 2005 whereby learned Sub-Judge-1, Muzaffarpur, has rejected a counter claim made by the petitioners/defendants in their written statement. The petitioners have also sought for setting aside a subsequent order dated 18.8.2011 passed in the same suit whereby an application for reviewing the earlier order dated 31.8.2010 has been rejected. This is not in dispute that the plaintiffs/respondents 1st set have filed the said Title Suit No. 560 of 2005 seeking a decree for confirmation of their possession with respect to suit land and also for a declaration that a deed of Ladavi dated 16.5.1996, said to have been executed by Bhola Sah, was forged and fabricated. The plaintiffs further sought for a declaration that Nageshwar Sah and three brothers had no right to execute sale deed dated 2.4.1996 and 31.7.1996.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, who were defendants before the Court below, is that they filed their counter claim alongwith their written statement seeking inter alia, a declaration that they had absolute title and exclusive possession over the suit property. On the basis of pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, issues were framed. The issues so framed have been brought on record by way of Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners today. The issues so framed included the following issues:--

(3.) It appears that for one reason or the other, no report could be submitted, by the Sheristedar of the court on the counter claim filed by the petitioners. The trial of the suit commenced, evidence by the parties were led and after completion of evidence, in course of argument the petitioners took a plea that they had filed a counter claim which required to be admitted. The petitioners filed an application before the Court below on 4.7.2006, stating these facts. It further appears that on a subsequent report having been submitted by Sheristedar the petitioners deposited the required Court fee with respect to the counter claim.