SOHANLAL CHHAJULAL Vs. BOLYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eight appeals, one filed by Sohanlal and the other seven by Mishrilal against the respective respondents came up for hearing before us. Since they raised a common point of law - whether these appeals have been properly filed or not - they were all heard together, and this one order disposes of the question raised in all these appeals.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the two appellants Sohanlal and Mishrilal filed suits for possession against the various respondents. They were decreed by the trial court, but these decrees were reversed by the first appellate Court. Against this order of reversion by the first appellate Court these second appeals were filed in 1961-62 before the Board of Revenue. The appellants filed the copy of the decrees and the judgments of the first appellate Court but no copy of the Court of first instance was ever filed with these appeals. Therefore, in 1963 when these appeals came up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondents that these appeals were incompetent until the judgment of the Court of first instance was filed. The counsel for the appellant took leave of the Court to reply to this preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent. He made an application subsequently and alongwith that application filed the copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance, but no copy of the application with which judgment of the Court of first instance was filed was given to the counsel for the respondent. However, the question came up again when these appeals were taken up for hearing whether these appeals were properly filed in the absence of the judgment of the court of first instance.