SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) At the outset, the learned Senior counsels appearing for the parties stated that they are not pressing the interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the respective parties and they agreed for final hearing of the Second Appeal on merits.
(2.) Vide order dated 24.11.2006 the following substantial questions of law were formulated: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Appeal below can be sustained in law for non-substitution of heirs of the sole defendant who died in 1961 whereas the preliminary decree was filed in 1955 and application for final decree was filed in 1997 (2) Whether the appearance of Pleader Commissioner without substituting heirs of the sole deceased defendant is vitiated in law
(3.) Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that from the pleadings of the parties another substantial question of law on the issue of allotment of share to the plaintiffs more than for what they have been found entitled to in the preliminary decree, also arises for consideration in the instant Second appeal.;