HARI RAM Vs. BITTI ALIAS PYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. It transpires from the record that this second ap peal was presented before this Court in the year 1991. The appeal was dis missed vide order dated 21. 7. 2003 on the ground that there were concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the two Courts below and no specific ques tion/questions of law are involved in this appeal. Subsequently, the review of the judgment dated 21. 7. 2003 was sought by learned Counsel for the appellant by filing a Review Petition No. 228 of 2003 before this Court and vide order dated 20. 4. 2005, this Court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 21. 7. 2003. It was also directed the matter be listed before appropriate Bench in the first week of May, 2005 when the Hon'ble Judge may hear the par ties again as to what is exactly the substantial question of law involved in this appeal as observed in the order dated 7. 3. 1991 passed by Hon'ble K. C. Bhargava, J. (as he then was) and thereafter the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits.

(2.) AS per order-sheet, the case was listed on 20. 5. 2005. Thereafter, it was listed on 6. 7. 2005 and on the request of Sri Vinod Kumar Misra holding brief of Sri ASeem Chandra, the case was adjourned. However, it was directed that on the next date, if the case is not argued, stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. Subsequently, the case was listed on 11. 7. 2005, on which date, the case was adjourned. On 19. 7. 2005, learned Counsel for the appellant was not present and as such, the case was dismissed in default. However, vide order dated 19. 4. 2006, the case was restored to its original number. Thereafter, the case was listed on 5. 7. 2007, on which date, again learned Counsel for the appellants was not pre sent and as such, the case was dismissed in default. However, vide order dated 6. 8. 2007, the case was restored to its original number.

(3.) THIS Court is bound and has to respect the observations and directions made by this Court in its order dated 24. 7. 2008, where this Court has already taken note that the matter was very old and the appellants are in unlawful possession of the property in dispute and they are enjoying the benefits of the property by virtue of continuance of the proceedings of this Court, no adjourn ment can be allowed.