CHANDRAKALA DOMB Vs. MASTER DOMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub -Judge, Nuapada in T.S. No. 53 of 1990.

(2.) APPELLANT was the defendant No. 3 in the trial court. The suit had been filed for issuance of perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from entering upon Schedule 'A' lands and alternatively for partition of Schedule 'B' land and for a direction to allot 'A' schedule land to the share of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1. From the order and decree passed by the trial court it appears that the original respondent No. 1 Master Domb had filed an application under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to allow him to withdraw the suit against the present appellant who was defendant No. 3 in the trial Court. Said prayer was allowed and the suit was disposed of on compromise. Present appellant against whom the suit had been withdrawnfiled Title Appeal No. 24/3 of 1990 -2000 in the court of the learned District Judge, Bhawanipatna against the aforesaid compromise decree. The appeal was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada. The appeal having been dismissed the present Second Appeal has been filed.

(3.) KEEPING in mind the law as aforesaid I proceed to examine the order -sheet of the lower appellate court. From the records, it appears that the appeal was received by the learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada from the file of the District Judge, Bhawanipatna on 27.3.2000 and the case was directed to be posted on the date already fixed for hearing. On 21.4.2000 none appeared for either party and the following order was passed :