RSA No.728 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.728 of 2011 (O&M)). Decided on: February 10, 2011. Jasbir Singh and another. .. Appellants VERSUS Nirmal Singh. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Kasturi Lal, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction has been decreed by the Courts below, inter alia, holding that the plaintiff-respondent has got a right of joint ownership in the tractor left by the father of the plaintiff-respondent and defendants- appellants, disbeliving the plea of the defendants-appellants that on . . . 1 RSA No.728 of 2011 (O&M) receipt of a sum of ` 1 lac, the plaintiff-respondent had compromised the matter and given up his rights in the tractor which was owned by the deceased father of the parties. Both the Courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, arrived at a finding of fact that the defendants-appellants have not been able to establish the payment of ` 1 lac to the plaintiff-respondent in lieu of his share in the tractor in dispute. Counsel for the defendants-appellants has vehemntly contended that the defendants-appellants had raised a specific counterclaim in their written statement to the effect that the plaintiff had relinquished his share in the ownership of the tractor after receiving a sum of ` 1 lac at the time of final settlement and that the suit of mandatory injunction of the defendants-appellants be decreed directing the plaintiff to get the said tractor transferred in the name of defendants-appellants as the tractor stood registered in the name of defendants as well as the plaintiff. Counsel submits that no reply was filed to the counterclaim and as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-E CPC, the Courts below could have pronounced judgment against the plaintiff- respondent in view of the counterclaim made agaianst the plaintiff- respondent. I have heard the counsel for the defendants- appellants and gone through the judgments of the Courts below. The lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the validity of the compromise claimed by the defendants-appellants in the . . . 2 RSA No.728 of 2011 (O&M) counterclaim to determine whether the counterclaim could have been allowed. No doubt there was no specific issue on the counterclaim but the parties seem to have led their evidence in context to issue No.1 which shows the controversy raised in the counterclaim by the defendants-appellants i.e., regarding the validity of the compromise regarding payment of ` 1 lac by the defendants-appellants to the plaintiff-respondent in view of the plaintiff-respondent having relinquished his right in the tractor. I have considered the contention of the counsel for the appellants regarding the counterclaim. No doubt, the counterclaim can be raised by the defendants-appellants as per Oreder 8 Rule 6-E CPC, and it has to be specifically stated as has been done by the defendants-appellants. The right of the defendants-appellants to get a reply to the counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6-E CPC is also not disputed but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that when the two contesting parties are at issue on a particular point and have led evidence and the Court arrived at a conclusion that the non-framing of a separate issue on counterclaim has not prejudiced the rights of the parties as has been done in the present case by the lower appellate Court, the finding of fact arrived at on a particular point will be a finding of fact which cannot be made the subject matter of an appeal under Section 100 CPC. The compromise and the effect of payment of ` 1 lac by the defendants- appellants to the plaintiff-respondent has been taken into consideration by the Courts below. The plea raised in the . . . 3 RSA No.728 of 2011 (O&M) counterclaim had to be established by the defendants-appellants. The defendants-appellants have failed in their attempt to establish their plea taken up in the counterclaim. No ground is made out to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 10, 2011. rka . . . 4