- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.1.06 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 25/05, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.2.05 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.1, South, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 140.03.
(2.) In the instant case it appears that the suit was filed by the respondent No.2-Prem Prakash Sharma against the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 seeking permanent injunction for restraining the said defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the lands in question. In the said suit, the present appellants had filed an application for being impleaded as the party-defendants, which application was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record had decreed the suit of the respondent No.2-plaintiff by restraining the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3-defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the lands in question without following due process of law. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the present appellants-applicants had filed the appeal being No. 25/05 alongwith the applications seeking condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal as well as the application seeking permission to file the appeal. The respondent No.3-State Government had also filed the separate appeal being No. 28/05 alongwith the application seeking condonation of delay. The appellate court vide the impugned judgment and decree dismissed both the appeals against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.P. Garg for the appellants that the respondent No.2-plaintiff had obtained a collusive decree against the defendants in the suit concealing the material facts that the appellants were in possession of the lands in question and therefore the appellants had right to file the appeal. Mr. Garg has also submitted that since the appellants were not the party to the suit proceedings they were not aware about the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and therefore the appellate court could have condoned the delay in the interest of justice. According to him when the appellate court had dismissed the appeals on the ground of being barred by law of limitation, the appellate court should not have dealt with the merits of the case.;