Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FOLLOWING substantial question of law arises in this second appeal for consideration: Whether learned first appellate court committed an illegality in dismissing the first appeal of the Appellants on the ground of delay of 10 -11 days and in not condoning the delay in the facts and circumstances of the present case? Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the appeal may be heard and disposed off finally at this stage. Request of learned Counsel for the parties is allowed and the appeal is being heard and disposed off finally at this stage.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of second appeal are that Plaintiff -Respondent filed a suit for cancellation of Vigilance Committee Report No. 3365/48 dated 10.10.2006 and for refund of Rs. 50,000/ -, wrongly recovered by Defendants -Appellants. Defendants -Appellants filed their written statement. Trial court framed four issues, which are reproduced in the judgment of trial court. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Trial court vide its judgment dated 17.10.2008 and decree dated 31.10.2008 decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and declared the Vigilance Committee Report dated 10.10.2006 as illegal and void and passed a decree of recovery of Rs. 50,000/ - alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the Plaintiff.;