Revision against dismissal of application seeking rejection of defendant's counter-claim held maintainable. No illegality found; maintainability to be examined post-evidence.
Revision petition 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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.4736 of 2005
Date of decision 05.12.2006
Randhir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Rajbir Singh and ors.
...Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for rejection of counter-claim raised by defendant No.3, was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 earlier moved an application for impleading as defendant which was allowed. In the written statement, the defendant has filed counter-claim injunction against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said counter-claim was sought to be rejected by the plaintiff by moving an application which was dismissed by the order impugned in the present revision petition.
The argument that the counter-claim does not disclose any cause of action cannot be examined at
C.R.No.4736 of 2005
[2]
this stage. Cause of action is bundle of facts which requires to be examined by the court after the evidence is led. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that such a counter claim is without jurisdiction.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial court that the counter-claim is maintainable. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all his pleas in respect of maintainability or justifiability of the counter-claim before the
learned trial court.
The petition is dismissed.
05.12.2006 sd
( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was right in refusing to hold that the counter-claim was without maintainability at the revision stage.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for rejection of the counter-claim was illegal or irregular.
Randhir Singh
Rajbir Singh and ors.
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
