1. 1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order under revision, it transpires that a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs to the effect that an open court- yard existing between the house of plaintiffs and the defendants- respondents belongs to him and the defendants-petitioners are trying to open the gate in front of the court-yard although the land does not belong to them. The defendants-respondents filed an application of counter claim asserting therein that the land in question neither belongs to the plaintiffs nor to the defendants- respondents but it is a public property. This application of the defendants-petitioners was rejected by the court below on the ground that the counter claim at the instance of the defendants-petitioners is not maintainable for the property admittedly is not claimed by them and in any view, the plaintiffs will have to prove their title to the disputed property before they secure an order injunction.

2. It is no doubt true that a counter claim ordinarily could have been filed by the defendants-petitioners only if they asserted title to the suit property or at least t