Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 638 (UTT)

NOVAL CASTABLES AND CHEMICALS v. USHA PANT

2009-12-22

TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Pradeep Hairiya, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijay Bhatt, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents. 2. The applicant is the plaintiff and filed a suit for declaration and for a permanent injunction praying that the plaintiff should be declared the owner of the land in question and that the opposite party should be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the land and the firm which has been reconstituted. The plaintiff alleged that there was a partnership firm by the name of M/s Noval Castables and Chemicals in which the plaintiff and the husband of defendant no. 1 Devki Nandan Pant were the original partners and, upon the death of Devki Nandan Pant, the partnership firm was reconstituted in which the plaintiff Ramesh Chandra Binjola and Smt. Sudha Binjola became partners and that the firm and the land in question belongs to this partnership firm. The plaintiff contended that the opposite party had nothing to do with this firm and they are unnecessarily interfering in the running of the firm and were wrongly claiming ownership on the land in question. 3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed the written statement as well as a counter claim, claiming that the new partnership, upon the death of Devki Nandan Pant should be declared void and that the opposite parties should be made partners in the said firm, being the legal heirs of Devki Nandan Pant. 4. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the counter claim raised by the opposite party had nothing to do with the controversy involved in the present suit and consequently, the said counter claim should be rejected and that the opposite party should be directed to file an independent suit if they are so advised. 5. The trial court, after considering the matter and after hearing the parties, rejected the application of the plaintiff and directed him to file a written statement to the counter claim. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the counter claim has a different cause of action, quite apart from the fact that the relief claimed was patently baseless and could not be decreed. 7. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the counter claim has a different cause of action, quite apart from the fact that the relief claimed was patently baseless and could not be decreed. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court was justified in entertaining the counter claim of the defendant and, in directing the plaintiff to file a written statement, even though the cause of action may be different or may appear to be different. The Court is of the opinion that the issue involved in the suit filed by the plaintiff and the questions raised by the defendants in their counter claim are interlinked with each other. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff admits that the property was invested from the common funds of the plaintiff and the deceased-Devki Nandan Pant and, upon his death, the heirs have been ousted and that the firm has wrongly been reconstituted. The defendants have therefore, prayed that the reconstituted firm should be declared void and they should be made partners in the said firm. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that the firm was validly reconstituted and that the heirs of Devki Nandan Pant have nothing to do with the assets of the partnership firm. These questions would be considered after evidence is lead by both the parties after issues are framed. At this stage, it is sufficient for this Court to hold that the issues raised by the plaintiff as well as by the opposite party are interlined and no useful purpose would be served in directing the defendants to file a separate suit. The trial court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. This Court does not find any palpable error in the order of the trial court. The civil revision consequently, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.