- (1.) Applicants seek condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit. C.M. No. 1556-C of 2014 Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 1557-C of 2014 Applicants seek condonation of delay of three days in refilling the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit. Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay of three days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. R.S.A. No. 676 of 2014 Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in toto, defendants have approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Briefly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed the suit on the ground that he was owner in possession of the suit property. Defendants were having no right or claim on the property in dispute. However, defendants were threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land, thereby compelling him to file the present suit.
(2.) On being put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying all the allegations of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that plaintiff was not in possession over the suit property. It was further pleaded that property of the defendants was adjoining to the property of plaintiff and he was trying to encroach upon the property of the defendants. Alleging the averments in the plaint to be false and frivolous, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
(3.) On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 1-A) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Relief.";