The appellants had filed their replica, i.e., additional written statement companytemplated under Order 8, Rule 6E CPC disputing the averments made by the respondent in their companynter claim.
Shri Pramod Dayal, learned companynsel for the appellant, companytended that in a suit for injunction, cause of action is based upon the threat of dispossession and interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent.
On receipt of the summons in the suit, the respondent filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that they had purchased the lands in Khasra No.103/1 situated at Budha Theh, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab and that they are in possession and enjoyment of 18 marlas of the said land.
The revision came to be dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order with direction to the trial Court to decide, as an issue, whether property in dispute is the same which is the subject matter of the companynter claim and to dispose of the suit after recording findings.
They also pleaded that the companynter claim is number maintainable.
thus, this appeal by special leave.
An application under Order 8, Rule 6C and Section 151 CPC was filed praying to exclude the companynter claim from the written statement.
The appellants plaintiffs laid the suit No.896/92 before the Sub Judge, Amritsar for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of the property bearing Khasra No.456, Purana Bazar, G.T. Road, Beas.
THE, 7TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamay Honble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Pramod Dayal, Adv.
Heard learned companynsel on both sides.
The Subordinate Judge by his order dated November 11, 1193 dismissed the application.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated August 1, 1994 in Civil Revision No.1272 of 1994 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
with him for the Respondents J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Courts was delivered RAMASWAMY, J Leave granted.
N. Salve, Sr.
Garg, Advs.
for the appellants.
They sought companynter claim of permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said land.
