GIRJA SHANKAR Vs. RAM SAJEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Tarun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below, submits that in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellants, an order of interim injunction was passed restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellants. However during pendency of the suit a sale deed was executed by respondents of the property in dispute, therefore, by way of amendment the same was challenged in the suit, but neither any issue was framed in regard to the same nor finding was recorded. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed. He further submits that the decree passed by the trial court was not before the appellate court, whereas an appeal can be filed against the decree under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (here-in-after referred as CPC), therefore, the appeal could not have been decided in it's absence, but without considering it and the grounds raised by the appellants in the appeal, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been affirmed, therefore the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, I have perused the material placed on records of this appeal and the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below.