Amareshwar Sahay, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and with their consent this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.
(2.) The facts in short are that the appellants filed a Title Appeal being Title Appeal No. 44 of 1998 before the district Judge, Chaibasa on 26.11.1998 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 1.10.1998. In the month of September 2001. Seraikella District was bifurcated from Chaibasa District and a new judgeship of Seraikella was created. The aforesaid title Appeal filed by the appellants was transferred to the District Court. Seraikella but according to the appellants the}' had no information about such transfer and ultimately Title Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of the appellants on 29.7.2003. According to the appellants, they came to know about the dismissal of their title appeal only on 14.11.2003 and. thereafter, they filed an application for restoration of title appeal, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 01/2004. The appellants also filed a separate application for substitution of the heirs of deceased opposite party No. 4 on 1.7.2004. but as it appears that by the impugned order, the application for restoration as well as the application for substitution as prayed for by the appellants. was dismissed on 9.2.2005.
(3.) On consideration of facts, involved in this case, I am of the opinion that the appellants did sufficiently explain the circumstances in which they could not pursue the Title Appeal.;