MOHAMMAD ALI Vs. QUAMRU JAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the root of this Letters Patent Appeal lies the controversy as to whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge of this Court directing restoration of an appeal subject to payment of cost? The controversy has arisen in the backdrop of the facts as set out hereinbelow:

(2.) PURSUANT to the judgment, dated 5.7.1985, passed, in Title Suit No. 25 of 1984/18 of 1983, by the learned 4th Additional Sub -Judge, Gaya, a decree was drawn on 12.8.1985. Aggrieved by the decree, dated 12.8.1985, an appeal was preferred, which gave rise to First Appeal No. 538 of 1985. The appeal was admitted on 24.9.1996 and, while directing issuance of notices, the proceeding of Execution Case No. 4 of 1995, which had been instituted for execution of the decree, dated 12.8.1985, aforementioned, was stayed. On 13.11.1995, when the appeal came up for hearing, since none had appeared on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for default.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties concerned, a learned single Judge of this Court passed an order, on 30.4.2014, allowing the application seeking restoration of the appeal subject to, however, payment of Rs. 7,000/ -, as cost.