A counterclaim should be treated as an independent suit and governed by the procedural rules applicable to plaints. The judgment and decree in the counterclaim are distinct from those in the suit, and hence, a composite appeal challenging both decrees is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

This is a defendants’ Second Appeal, wherein they have put a challenge to the judgment dated 11th April 2022 and the consequential decree rendered thereto i.e. dated 18th April 2022, passed by the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2018, Ghanshyam Singh and other Vs. Narendra Singh, as well as the judgment and decree dated 2nd May 2018 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 85 of 2007, Sri Narendra Singh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh and others.

2. A very peculiar situation, which has chanced to be considered in the present Second Appeal is, that the plaintiff (respondent herein), when on 24th May 2007, had instituted the Suit, in relation to the property, which has been described in para 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint, had sought a decree as against the defendants, by modulating the relief therein in the following manner:-

^^¼v½ ;g fd fMzdh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; d lkfnj Qjek nh tkos fd tkos fd izfroknhx.k o muds okfjlku rFkk ukSdj pkdj ,stsUVl oknh dh mijksDr Hkwfe ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds in laŒ1] 2] 3 o layXu utjh uD'kk es fn;k x;k gS eS fdlh Hkh izdkj dk csekxnk[kyr djus] o fdrk izdkj dk u;k fuekZ.k dPpk o iDdk djus l o fookfnr Hkwfe dh ewy izd`fr dks cnyus ls ges'kk ges'kk ds fy, ckt jgsA

^^v-v^^ ;g fd izfroknhx.k dks fookfnr Hkw[k.M ls csn[ky dj mldk dCtk oknh dks fnyk;s tkus gsrq fu"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k ikfjr dj fookfnr Hk[k.M ls izfroknhx.k ls oknh dks ykblsal lekIr gksus dh frfFk ls okLrfod dCtk fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsA

¼Ck½ ;g fd vU; vuqrks"k tks U;k;ky; Jheku mfpr le>s oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;Sa

¼l½ ;g fd [kpkZ eqdnek oknh izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA^^

3. The nature of decree which was prayed for in the suit in fact it would amount to be a decree for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction, praying for not to change the nature of the property in question and to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question. Apart from that, the nature of injunction, which was sought for directing the defendants to pay the lease rent @ Rs. 3050 per month as would be payable to the plaintiff, as a consequence of the expiry of the terms of the lease.

4. What would be culled out from the nature of relief, which has been prayed for, it was rather a decree of permanent injunction which was prayed for by the plaintiff/respondent, as well as a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants not to evict the plaintiff from the property in question, as described in the plaint. But, if the relief clause itself is taken into consideration, the reference of the disputed property which has to be read in correlation to the pleading as raised in para 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint, it has been qualified with the plaint map, which was annexed with the plaint, which unfortunately is not the part of the records of the present Second Appeal.

5. The Suit proceeded; notices were issued to the defendants, and the defendants, apart from denying the plaint allegations, have prayed for a relief by way of a counterclaim praying for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction in relation to the nature as prayed for that the plaintiff/respondents may be restrained from evicting the defendant/appellants from the property in question, except in accordance with the provisions of law and not to interfere in their peaceful possession over the property in question.

6. Though, apparently it seems that the nature of relief, if it is comparatively read as that it was claimed in the Suit and that as claim in the counterclaim though it was in relation to the same set of property, which was described in the plaint, as well as in the written statement, which was more particularly dealt in para 20 and 21 of the counterclaim, that is the land lying in khata khatauni No. 119 khet No. 217(ka), having an area of 0.0700 hectares over which the defendants/appellants claimed to be in poss