A counter-claim is treated as a plaint, requiring separate appeals for original claims and counter-claims, and the absence of a substantial question of law results in dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The facts leading to the filing of the present second appeal are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) had initially filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction in the lower court, alleging that the suit land, owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and recorded as Share-Aam path, was being used by the plaintiffs and other members of the general public to pass themselves and their cattle to reach the main PWD road situated south of the suit path. The plaintiffs claimed that the general public, including themselves, had been using this path without any interference. It was further alleged that on the east of the Share-Aam path lay the cultivable land of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who, without any right, title, or interest, had enclosed the land by putting up a fence and encroached upon the public path. The plaintiffs came to know about this encroachment in the first week of December 2008 and subsequently moved an application to the Gram Panchayat, which in turn approached the Tehsildar. However, the Kanungo was not allowed to demarcate the land by defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The Gram Panchayat also passed a resolution on 07.09.2009, requesting the government to remove the encroachment, but no action was taken.

2. Further applications were moved to the SDM, Dehra, on 22.12.2008, yet no action was initiated by defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs contended that the Gram Panchayat had intended to construct a pucca path for the use of the general public but was unable to do so due to the actions of the defendants. The existing path passed through the land of adjoining owners on the western side, with their consent, but this consent could be withdrawn at any time. The plaintiffs also highlighted that the current path was unsuitable for children and the elderly due to water pipes running above it, making it unsafe and unfit for use. They argued that unless the encroached land was vacated, the plaintiffs and the general public would be deprived of their rightful use of the path due to the wrongful acts of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Despite multiple applications and a notice under Section 80 of the CPC, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the suit.

3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who filed separate written statements raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, and estoppel. On merits, they denied the existence of a Share-Aam path in Khasra No. 148, asserting that the Share-Aam path was located in Khasra Nos. 147 and 160, and thereafter in Khasra Nos. 154 to 157, and had been in use for over 20 years. They alleged that Khasra No. 147, which was a Share-Aam path, had been encroached upon by the plaintiffs themselves. The defendants denied encroaching upon any government land and claimed that no demarcation had ever been conducted. They further alleged that the plaintiffs were attempting to harass them by falsely claiming a path through their land (Khasra No. 109), where their abadi was situated. The defendants also referred to a prior case decided by the Gram Panchayat on 07.11.1992, wherein a demarcation had been conducted, and the path had been in use since then. They denied the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the unsuitability of the existing path and asserted that the path in Khasra Nos. 147, 160, 157, 156, 155, and 154 connected to the PWD road in Khasra No. 191 and was used by all, including for vehicles like tractors and jeeps. They accused the plaintiffs of obstructing the path in Khasra No. 147, which was government land, and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant No. 4, in its written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, and the bar under Section 10 of the CPC. On merits, it admitted that the suit land was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and recorded as Share-Aam path, which had been used as a passage since time immemorial. It