S!^^ -•^'.-rf •^/ BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 N0. %{b /2007 WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER (DEFN0.1) <^^. y^l^" ^ ^y^' ..-•^^"" ,,.-"4<\\0 ^••:^."^>' • ^y .-^ \^: •'^ RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF DEFEN N0.2 ».-Smt. Anuradha @ Anuradha Thakur, aged about 26 years, wife of Shri Thakur Surendra Singh, resident of Dayalband, Near Bhatkhande Music University, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS S. Venket Raman, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Prabhakar Rao, R/o. Tilak Nagar (Near Congress Bhawan), Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) (NowC.G.) S. Prabhakar Rao, aged about 67 years, son of Late Shri S. Venket Rao, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Near Congress Bhawan, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now C.G.j ^^ XI-HC-78 ^T^T^Tf^TT^ ^TW^T^Ht^ +11*1^1 9h<1T^ 'S^ ^Nld^, ^Tfl<lll$, fc)dW^< ^^'M^M^^^ ^ 20<P 3TT^?TW^K ('icl^s<^) ?^rw: ^rfN'W^T 23.01.2007 Shri AU Asgai', learned Tliis petition is direct( P/ 5 passeci by leai'ned Foii whereby prelmmiaiy objecti< No. 2 with respect to the co No. 1 has been allowed aiid 1 has been held not maintmi Leained counsel for plaiiitiff had ffled a civil s^ iiijunction with the plaiiil executed bv their fatlier u| enforceable. In the above ^ has filed a couiiterclabii' irijunction to the effect that share of fcb.e property apart The coiinterclaiBi has beeii ^ lias been set up witli resp^ ^prf^frrw^ff ^*te^" rf^R^ ^3Tf^T3TI^T 'ounsel for the petitioner. {d agauist the order of Aiiiiexure [th Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur >ii of tlie plaiiitiff an.d defendaiit |interclami preferrecl by defendaat tlie counterclaim of defendant No, lable. the petitioner submits tliat the [ut for declai'ation aiid peiyetual aJlegations tiiat tlie gift deed favour of the pelitioner is uot uit, tlie petitioiier/defenclarit F^o.1 for declaration mid perpetual tlie petitioner is die owner of l/3rd :ora the subject 3iiatt.er oftlie suit, ejected on tlie ground tibat siiice it ct to lliie propert}' which is otlier Tl Bl:<'-!"--""<::-u—:?-:-;"-l ;;?]RN"M1?l1^J^1 XI-HC-78 ^n^T^rf^Tt^ ^TT3TR?T$b^|ct) 4^o? ^> *11+<^TTff»+l|c|» s^'-^pn^ra', ^Tfl'H'Ks, fcidi^y ar^'./f.C^M'. *^ 200^ w^?rTaw (<i^3^sr) ^RTTW^T^Tr^T tliaii tlie subject matter of|tlie siiit, it is not laamtaiiiable rmder Order 8 RiUe 6(A) of tljie C.P.C, aad that it has been set up aiter sm years from the fi^iag ofwritten statemeut, which is not permissible. I have heard leanied perosed the iiiipugned order by tlie petitioner/defendaiit ^ Tal^uiR into considerat coTinsel for the petitiouer aiid |as also tiie counterclaini preferred lo.l. pertajiis to a property whicl^ pendiiig suit aiid further con| been prefeiTed after six y| stateiuent by tlie plaiiitiif, coBimitted bv tlie Court bj underArti.de 227 oftiie Con^ Witli the aforesaid ob^ be dismissed at fhe admissij) disiiiissed, CM^fcl1ift^ ^IH^T^te^^R^R ^3T^T3Tr^T .on the fact that tlie counterclaim is not tiie subject matter of tlie dderiiig fhe fact that the same has ?ars from fhe filnig of written no jurisdictional error has been dow which calls for iiiterference >titution of India. ervpatjons, tlie petitiou deserves to >ns stage itself aad is accordiB.gly, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ^