Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it transpires that the present appellant claims ownership over the disputed land, on the basis of adverse possession, for more than 30 years. Both the parties have relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & another reported in (2014)SCC Page 669. In paragraph no.10 of the said judgment, it was held by the Apex Court that it would be open to the appellant to plead in defence that he had become the owner of property by adverse possession. In Gurdwara’s case (Supra), the declaration of ownership was sought on the basis of adverse possession along with the decree of injunction. But the Court, while decreeing the suit for injunction, denied the decree of declaration to the plaintiff/appellant. At the same time, the Apex Court held that it would be open to the appellant to plead in his defence that he had become the owner of property by adverse possession. 2. In the case cited above, there was no cross-case of Gram Panchayat seeking possession/ejectment of appellant. Rather, it was only the one-sided case. Whereas, in the instant case, plaintiff/appellant Jagdish Prasad Dhyani instituted the suit, not only for seeking decree of injunction against possession but also sought the declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. In this original suit, the counter-claim was filed by respondents Damodar Prasad and others under Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which tantamount to filing suit by Damodar Prasad against Jagdish Prasad Dhyani. 3. So, in light of what has been discussed above, this second appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “A. Whether both the judgments of both the Courts below are not vitiated for non-consideration of un-rebutted evidence of PW1 and PW2 who were neither cross-examined in regard to the statements pertaining to raising of construction, ouster of defendants, uninterrupted possession of plaintiff nor were given suggestions? B. Whether the counter claim sought by the defendants was time barred as the disputed property had been in possession since 1979-1980, while the counter claim has been sought in the year 2009 ?” 4. Call for the lower court record. 5. List after six weeks. 6. B. Whether the counter claim sought by the defendants was time barred as the disputed property had been in possession since 1979-1980, while the counter claim has been sought in the year 2009 ?” 4. Call for the lower court record. 5. List after six weeks. 6. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is hereby directed that both the parties shall maintain the status quo as exists today, in relation to the property in dispute. 7. Stay application no.9595 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.