- (1.) In view of the elaborate arguments that have been advanced at the Bar we deem it proper to support our conclusions, which is adverse to the petitioners, with our reasons therefor,
(2.) The petitioners are two out of three co-owners who had instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent No.1-tenant. The third co-owner (Respondent No. 2 here in) , who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, in his written statement, objected to the eviction and explicitly stated that the suit is without its consent. The trial Court while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant No. 2 thought it proper to hold that the objection raised with regard to maintainability should be decided in the course of the trial of the suit.
(3.) In appeal, the High Court took a different view holding the suit to be not maintainable. Hence, these petitions for special leave to appeal to challenge the said order.;