- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellants on objection raised by the office.
(2.) OFFICE has raised objection that separate L.P.As. should have been filed in the facts of this case and particularly in the light of the order dated 05.07.2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 698 of 2003. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that Appellants are the successors of a common ancestor and their claim to the land is based on one Title and therefore, it will be futile to file separate L.P.As. even when the writ Petitioners -Respondents chose to file separate writ petitions before the Single Bench of this Court.
(3.) IT is also submitted that in original proceedings five petitions were filed by the Respondents but the original Court decided the matter by a common order and the Appellate Court decided the appeals by a common judgment and the Revisional Court also decided the matter by a common order. The learned Single Judge of this Court also decided the writ petitions by a common Judgment; therefore, the Appellants may be permitted to prefer one appeal against the common judgment dated 25.02.2010.;