NEYAZUDDIN Vs. SURYA DEVA NARAIN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents to this appeal commenced an action in the Munsiff Samastipur for a decree in ejectment against one Maddique, the members of his family, Siddique (brother of Maddique) , and the members of Siddique's family for a decree in ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent before action and future rent tilt eviction. Maddique died shortly after the suit was filed and his brother Siddique contended that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispute. Sons of Maddique who were shown as legal representatives adopted the stand taken by Siddique. The Trial court decreed the claim for rent but not for ejectment. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the District court. The District court set aside the decree of the Trial court and remanded the case for trial and disposal to the court of First Instance. The trial court decreed the suit against the defendants. An appeal filed to the District court was unsuccessful. The decree of the Trial court was confirmed in second appeal to the High court of Patna.

(2.) Special leave to appeal was granted by this court on Marc 3/03/1966. The defendants obtained an order for stay of execution of the decree of the High court. Thereafter they did not take effective steps to prosecute the appeal. They did not pay the printing charges till September, 1969 and later moved this court for an order that the printing of the record be dispensed with and that the appeal be heard and disposed of on "the special leave paper book". It was represented to this court that the only question which the defendants desired to raise before the court related to the jurisdiction of the Civil court to entertain the suit on 14/11/1948. The courtgranted the order dispensing with the printing of the record on that representation.

(3.) In this appeal Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the defendants (Appellants herein) , however, seeks not only to raise the contention that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed, but further contends that the decree passed by the Civil Court in 1951 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a decree in ejectment has become final and the plaintiffs not having appealed against that decree the decree of the Civil court passed in 1957 and confirmed by the District court and High court of Patna is without jurisdiction.