JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, vide which, the appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (plaintiff before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. V, Shimla was affirmed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. This suit was dismissed in default for want of appearance on 12.06.2003 and was not got restored. Hence, it is not necessary to notice the averments made in the plaint and the written statement filed to the same.

3. The defendant filed an amended counter-claim on 11.09.2000 asserting that a lease deed stated to have been executed by Niranjan Dass in favour of the plaintiff on 23.04.1996, which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Shimla is wrong, illegal and the result of misrepresentation of facts, fraud, coercion and was got executed in active connivance with the concerned agency. No amount was received by the defendant nor was it paid to any person including Niranjan Dass, the executant. The defendant was appointed as a Manager of the temple property by Baba Kumbh Dass, the founder of the religious institution known as Baba Shri Chand Mandir, Ram Bazar, Shimla. The defendant was adopted as Chella of Baba Kumbh Dass Ji in a function of Rasam Mahanti. This fact was also published in a weekly newspaper, Mahatma, published at Amritsar on 22.06.1983. The lease deed dated 23.04.1996 registered on 30.04.1996 is null and void and does not bind the rights of the defendant. The defendant is not authorized to create any lease nor he could authorize any person to do so. The defendant does not know English and can only sign in Hindi. He can only read Punjabi. The lease deed is liable to be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed and the counter-claim be decreed.

4. The plaintiff filed a written statement to the counter-claim taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability & better particulars, the defendant being estopped from filing the counter-claim due to his act, deed and conduct, the counter-claim not having been properly valued and the counter-claim being bad for the non-joinder of the necessary parties. It was admitted that the lease deed was executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff. The rest of the pleas taken in the counter-claim were denied. It was specifically denied that the lease deed was the result of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation of facts or that the defendant did not know Hindi or he could only read Punjabi language. Hence, it was prayed that the counter-claim be dismissed.

5. Learned Trial Court framed the issues based on the plaint and written statement on 25.02.1999 and composite issues on 04.05.2001:

Issues framed on 25.02.1999:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable?..OPD

3. Whether suit is bad for want of non-joinder of necessary parties?…OPD

4. Where there exists no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the suit?...OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped his acts and conduct to file the suit?...OPD

6. Whether the suit is mala fide one? …OPD

7. Relief.

Issues framed on 04.05.2001:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? ...OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estoppped by his own acts, deed and acquiescence?