Revision against an order rejecting objections to a defendant's counter-claim in a permanent injunction suit. The court held the objections were without substance, upheld the trial court's reasoning on title and valuation, and dismissed the revision.
The civil revision was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 47 of 2020
Revisionist :- Smt. Pammi Tyagi Opposite Party :- Smt. Shanti Rani And 3 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amitabh Agarwal
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant revision is directed against an order rejecting an application 65-Ga filed by the plaintiff-revisionist.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiffrevisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction. The opposite party-defendant filed a counter claim along with written statement. This was objected to by the revisionist stating that the counter claim was not in proper form inasmuch as it was labeled as a written statement.
The second objection raised was that the parties had not been properly described and that by way of counter claim a declaration was being sought. In fact the defendant should have been filed a separate suit for declaration
The third objection was that the counter claim had not been properly valued.
By the impugned order, the aforesaid objections have not been repelled.
In any case, if an application or a counter claim has not been properly titled, the same is not fatal defect. The court below has observed that all requisite averments of a counter claim are to be found in the document filed by the defendant in the suit. I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given by the trial court.
Even before this Court the contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party should be filed a separate suit for declaration.
Despite a pointed query by the Court, counsel for the revisionist could not point out anything or produce any case law wherein it has been held that in an injunction suit, a declaration cannot be sought by means of counter claim. Therefore, the second objection of the plaintiff-revisionist was also without substance and was rightly repelled by the trial court.
Insofar as the issue of under valuation or improper valuation of the counter claim is concerned, in my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly granted liberty for filing an objection to the valuation given, where after an issue in that regard can be framed and can be decided as a preliminary issue. There is no illegality even in this observation made by the trial court.
In view of what has been stated above, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error which would warrant interference.
The revision is, under the circumstances, found to be without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Priyanka
Digitally signed by Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra Date: 2020.10.12 15:29:23 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of objection to the propriety of a counter-claim filing a declaration constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Whether a declaration can be sought by counter claim in an injunction suit.
Whether the trial court's observation regarding under valuation of the counter claim warrants interference.
Smt. Pammi Tyagi
Smt. Shanti Rani
Anjani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
