P.S. Rana, J. - (1.)Present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 24.4.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Dehra Distt. Kangra (H.P.) in C.S. No. 174/2012 title Smt. Suman Sharma & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Others whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by codefendant No.1 under section 151 CPC for excluding counter claim filed by codefendants No.2 to 5 from civil suit No. 174 of 2012.
Brief facts of the case:

(2.)Smt. Suman Sharma & Others plaintiffs filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land and entitled to remain in possession of suit land in future also being successors-in-interest of deceased Bansi Lal. It is pleaded that alleged Will dated 9.10.2002 executed by deceased Bansi Lal in favour of co-defendant No.1 Rakesh Kumar is false, frivolous, fictitious and is a result of fraud and undue influence and has no effect on the rights of plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that mutation Nos. 391 and 648 sanctioned and attested on 28.4.2007 are also null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs. Consequential relief of perpetual and prohibitory injunction sought restraining the defendants from cutting, felling and removing any type of tree from the suit land and from changing the nature of suit land and from alienating the suit land in any manner. Additional relief of rendition of accounts also sought.
(3.)Per contra written statement filed on behalf of co-defendant No.1 Rakesh Kumar pleaded therein that suit filed by plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is pleaded that suit is time barred. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed material facts from the Court. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescences. It is further pleaded that valuation of suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction not properly mentioned. It is further pleaded that plaint filed by plaintiffs is not verified in accordance with law.
It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are daughters and co-defendant No.1 Rakesh Kumar is son of late Sh. Bansi Lal. It is further pleaded that codefendants No.2 to 5 namely C. L. Sharma, Nand Lal, Suresh Kumari and Rajni Devi are sons and daughters of deceased Smt. Shanti Devi who was daughter of Smt. Shanti Devi first wife of deceased Bansi Lal. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs and co-defendant No.1 were born from Smt. Kamla Devi who is second wife of late Sh. Bansi Lal. It is further pleaded that suit property was acquired by deceased Bansi Lal on the basis of gift deed executed by his uncle Sh. Ajudhia Dass and on the basis of Will executed by his father Sohan Lal. It is further pleaded that suit property became self acquired property of deceased Bansi Lal. It is further pleaded that Sh. Bansi Lal has executed registered Will dated 9.10.2002 in favour of co-defendant No.1 Rakesh Kumar. It is further pleaded that co-defendant No.1 after the death of Sh. Bansi Lal on the basis of testamentary document became absolute owner in possession of suit property. It is further pleaded that mutations Nos. 391 and 648 were sanctioned in accordance with law and on the basis of testamentary document i.e. registered Will dated 9.10.2002.

It is further pleaded that plaintiffs pleaded mutually contradictory and destructive pleas in the pleadings. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs were married and they are residing in Punjab. It is further pleaded that codefendant No.1 used to look after his old aged father. It is further pleaded that in view of testamentary document in favour of co-defendant No.1 plaintiffs have no legal right, title and interest over suit land. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought.