BISHNU SHANKAR BHOI AND ORS. Vs. MUKTESWAR DANDASENA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants are the Defendants in Title Suit No. 105/65. The suit having been decided against the Defendants, they went up in appeal and that appeal (T.A. No. 73/3 of 1967/68) was allowed by the appellate Court. Thereafter the Plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal No. 138/69 before this Court. The appellate decision was set aside and the case was remanded to the appellate Court. It may be noted that the High Court while remanding the case to the appellate Court had directed the first appellate Court to dispose of the said appeal before 5 -1 -1973. The Appellants appeared before the appellate Court and with the consent of both the parties the Court fixed the hearing of the appeal no 2 -1 -1973.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Appellants, after the date of hearing of the appeal was fixed to 2 -1 -1973. On 26 -12 -1972 Appellant No. 2 approached their lawyer Sri B.K. Pal at Cuttack to get the case records from him, but Mr. Pal was absent from Cuttack on that

(3.) IT is urged by Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the Appellants that the appellate Court should not have taken up the appeal for hearing on merits and should not have decided the same on merits in the absence of the Appellants from the Court on the date of hearing of that appeal. His above submission is supported squarely by the decision reported in Kaleswarr Singh a Anr. v. Raghubir Singh and Ors. : A.I.R. 1961 Pat. 299, wherein it has been held: