JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) This is a defective appeal. Defects are notified in the report of the Stamp Reporter. After hearing Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that the defects are of such nature which cannot be cured at this stage as his application for curing such defects before the learned first Appellate Court was rejected by the learned first Appellate Court. Hence, we have decided to consider the appeal, as it stands now, for the purpose of hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Heard Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant. We have considered the judgements and decrees of the learned courts below. We are of the view that substantial questions of law are involved in this second appeal. As such, we admit this appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the learned first Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for addition of left the out defendants as respondents in the first appeal ? 2. Whether the learned first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the entries appearing in the certified copy of the suit register regarding execution of the earlier decree as on 3rd March, 1962 in column No. 26 therein is merely a clerical mistake without comparing the said entry in the certified copy of the suit register with the original record ?
(3.) Since Mr. Kajal Roy, learned advocate has already entered appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents, service of notice of appeal upon the respondents is dispensed with. The appeal is thus treated ready as regards service of notice of appeal upon the respondent.;