SARJU BARAI Vs. SURENDRA NATH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. At the time of arguments no one appeared on be half of the respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list.

(2.) INITIALLY against the impugned or ders this petition was filed as F. A. F. O. Mo, 199 of 1979. Thereafter an application was filed that permission might be granted to convert the appeal in to writ petition. On 31 -10-1983 permission was granted, hence it was converted in to a writ petition.

(3.) I do not see the least error in the judgment and order passed by the Ap pellate Court. The argument that appeal was not maintainable was also rightly repelled by the Appellate Court. Appeal was clearly maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 (k) C. P. C.