UDAYANATH DAS AND ANR. Vs. CHINTAMONI RAUT AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal although the question of law formulated is wide in its nature the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the disputed land belongs to the State of Orissa, which has been recorded to be in possession of the Plaintiffs, who sought for declaration of their title and permanent injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 alleging interference with their possession. All the reliefs were granted to the Plaintiffs in the decree. State of Orissa (Defendant No. 4) did not prefer any appeal and the decree became final as against it. Appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was dismissed and the decree was confirmed. The appellate Court expressed as follows:

(3.) APPEAL is a creature of the statute. The power of appeal is to be exercised to he extent provided for. Where a specific appellate power has been provided for, the inherent power inconsistent with such power should not be exercised. Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code is a power given to the appellate Court for giving relief to a party who has not preferred an appeal. It reads as follows: