RAKESH CHAND SOOD Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the second appeal are that the suit of the plaintiff -respondents was decreed by the Senior Sub Judge, Solan by judgment dated 1.12.1992, thereby passing a decree in their favour for possession of the suit premises detailed in para 1 of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant -appellants filed an appeal and the same has been dismissed on merits by the learned District Judge, Solan by judgment dated 23.9.1998, hence the present second appeal by them.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage for the reasons recorded hereinafter.

(3.) It is not disputed that the first appeal has been heard and disposed of on merits by the learned lower appellate court despite the fact that the appellants were not present on the relevant date. This is also borne out from the recordings much as it is indicated on the first page of the certified copy of the impugned judgment under appeal that none (nemo) was present on their behalf. No doubt, it is stated in para 7 thereof that when the said appeal was taken up for arguments, the counsel for the appellants sought permission to retire from the appeal, which was not granted by the learned court below. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appeal was beard [ and dismissed on merits despite the fact that the appellants were not/ i present on that date.