Chattisgarh High Court
Ghasiram (Died) Throgh Lrs Tara Bai & Ors vs Shashi Bhushan & Ors on 2 January, 2017
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
M.A.No.451/2002
Page 1 of 18
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Misc. Appeal No.451 of 2002
1. Ghasiram (Dead) Through LRs
1. Tara Bai, aged 48 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Kabaripali Tah.
2. Radha Bai, aged 46 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Barapipal,
Tahsil Dabhra.
3. Sulochana Bai, age 44 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Sarwani,
Tahsil Kharsia (Raigarh).
4. Ratan Bai, age 42 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Sapot, Tahsil
Dabhra.
5. Radhika Bai, age 38 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Dabhra,
Kosamajhar, Tahsil Dabhra.
6. Amrika Bai, age 25 years, D/o Ghasiram, R/o Kusmunda,
Tahsil Dhabhra.
2. Chandulal, aged 57 years, S/o Vishwanath Patel, R/o Bilaigarh
Sidwa, Post Girgira, Tahsil Dabhra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Bandhulal, aged 52 years, S/o Khashilal Patel, Teacher, R/o
Darri, Dabhra, Distt. Bilaspur.
4. Balram, aged 46 years, S/o Khashilal Patel.
5. Baldu, aged 52 years, S/o Chetan.
6. Sahani, aged 26 years, S/o Baldu.
7. Gajpati, aged 27 years, S/o Baldu.
Nos. 4 to 7 residents of Village Salhe, Tah. Dabhra, Distt.
Bilaspur.
---- Appellants/
(Defendants)
Versus
1. Shashi Bhushan, aged 32 years, S/o Rohit Kumar
2. Koushalprasad Kumar, aged 30 years, S/o Rohitkumar
M.A.No.451/2002
Page 2 of 18
3. Nanbai, aged 61 years, widow of Rohitkumar,
Nos. 1 to 3 residents of Village Salhe, Tah. Dabhra, Distt.
Bilaspur.
4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondents/
(Plaintiff 1 to 3) For Appellants: Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.4: Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/01/2017
1. The appellants are defendants who have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the CPC calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 27-3-2002 (impugned order) passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Misc. Civil Suit No.47/1999 by which the defendants' application under Order 41 Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 4-2-1997, have been rejected.
2. Essential facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: -
2.1) Original plaintiff Rohit Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of contract against defendants Ghasiram and others registered as Civil Suit No.7-A/1985 in the Court of 2 nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur. The suit was heard ex parte and decreed ex parte in favour of the then plaintiff Rohit Kumar on 4-2-1997.
Ultimately, ex parte judgment was passed and the suit was M.A.No.451/2002 Page 3 of 18 dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the ex parte judgment and decree, Rohit Kumar, the then plaintiff, filed first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in which the present defendants were declared ex parte by holding that they have refused to accept the summons (notices) issued by the Court and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside by judgment dated 2-12- 1997 and the appeal was allowed.
2.2) Being aggrieved against the judgment deciding the appeal ex parte and allowing the appeal ex parte, the appellants / defendants opted and moved an application under Order 41 Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rehearing / readmission of the appeal. The appellate court noticed the respondents herein on the said application and heard the matter, and reply was filed and thereafter, only on the basis of arguments, the application was heard and decided and that application was rejected.
2.3) Questioning that order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants / defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the CPC which was registered as M.A.No.451/2002. That appeal was heard and allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 3-9- 2013 which has passed order in this instant miscellaneous appeal directing the first appellate Court to expedite the case and decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from that date.
2.4) Against the said order dated 3-9-2013 passed by coordinate M.A.No.451/2002 Page 4 of 18 Bench of this Court in this instant appeal, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.8137/2014 (Shashi Bhushan and others v. Tarabai and others) before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 25-8-2014, set aside the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for its decision on merit afresh. This is how the matter is before me.
3. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / defendants, would submit that the learned District Judge is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 21 of the CPC ignoring the fact that the appellants were not duly served as they were said to have refused to accept the notices / summons, but no affidavit as required under Order 5 Rule 18 of the CPC was filed by the serving officer nor the serving officer was examined under Order 5 Rule 19 of the CPC, as the serving officer has not filed affidavit in Form 11 of Schedule I of the CPC and the provisions of Order 5 Rules 17 and 19 of the CPC are mandatory in nature. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 / plaintiffs, would submit that the defendants were having knowledge of the decree and they were duly served, they deliberately did not appear before the appellate Court and the process server has also filed his affidavit before the competent authority, duly executed in accordance with the provisions M.A.No.451/2002 Page 5 of 18 contained in Section 139 of the CPC, and therefore the first appellate Court is absolutely justified in holding that the defendants were duly served in appeal and as such the order impugned deserves to be affirmed. He placed heavy reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Indu Bhushan v. Munna Lal and another1.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made therein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. The principal question involved in this appeal is whether the appellants herein were served in the first appeal filed by the respondents herein / plaintiffs before the appeal Court, in accordance with law, or not.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the binding observations made by the Supreme Court while remitting the matter to this Court. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under: -
"On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the High Court while setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the appellate court has not discussed the fact relating to service of notice, though it appears that the record of the Court below was called for.
The question whether the notice was served on the defendants-respondents or they avoided the notice and whether in spite of knowledge they failed to appear without discussing the facts and going through the record the impugned order was passed by the High Court."
8. Keeping in view the findings/ observations made by the Supreme 1 (2007) 14 SCC 42 M.A.No.451/2002 Page 6 of 18 Court, I will proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
9. Suit filed by Rohit Kumar for specific performance of contract was dismissed on 4-2-1997 by declaring the defendants ex parte. Appeal was preferred on 6-3-1997. On 23-4-1997, the appeal was admitted and notices were ordered to be issued and the case was fixed for 30-6-1997. The process server submitted report on 15- 6-1997 and following endorsement was made by the process server on the back of all the notices: -
egksn;] ekSdsij tkdj e; xokgksa ds }kjk izfroknh dk irk yxk;k rks gkftj feyk mls e; ,d izfr uksfVl vthZ nkok dks fn[kkdj ysus dks dgk rks bUdkj fd;k blfy, e; ,d izfr uksfVl izfroknh ds edku ij pLik fd;kA dqatjke xokg 1- lqUnjyky iVsy 2- ykspu izlkn iVsy
10. The process server submitted report along with his hukumnama dated 23-6-1997 as under: -
1-?kklhjke 15-06-1997 dks 1-lqUnjyky egksn;] pLik ekSds ij iVsy ekSds ij tkdj e; uksfVl ysus djhcu 2-00 2- ykspu xokgksa ds }kjk ls badkj cts izlkn iVsy] izfroknhx.k dk irk 2- pUnqyky &@@& fcykbZx< yxk;k rks gkftj feyk &@@& lk- fcykbZx<] lh/kok mls e; ,d izfr uksfVl lh/kok fcgkjhyky vthZ nkok dks fn[kkdj iVsy ysus dks dgk rks bUdkj 3- cU/kq yky &@@& lkYgs fd;k blfy, e; ,d &@@& izfr uksfVl izfroknh ds 4- cyjke &@@& edku ij pLik fd;kA &@@& 5- cYnq &@@& &@@& 6- lgkuh &@@& &@@& M.A.No.451/2002 Page 7 of 18 7- xtirh &@@& &@@& dqatjke
11. Thereafter, on 30-6-1997, learned Presiding Officer of the District Court recorded that the present appellants refused to accept notice and therefore they were proceeded ex parte. Ultimately, the court proceeded ex parte and the appeal was allowed on 2-12-1997.
12. In order to decide the point in dispute, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Order 5 Rule 17, Order 5 Rule 18 and Order 5 Rule 19 of the CPC which are as under: -
"17. Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.--Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed.
18. Endorsement of time and manner of service.--The serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under Rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or M.A.No.451/2002 Page 8 of 18 annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons.
19. Examination of serving officer.--Where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit; and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit."
13. A bare perusal of Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC obliges the process server to submit a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed, where the defendant or his agent or such other person refuses to sign the acknowledgment or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued with a report.
14. I have carefully gone through the report of the process server, which was returned to the Court. A bare perusal would show that the process server has only recorded that each of the defendants has refused to accept the summons and therefore he M.A.No.451/2002 Page 9 of 18 affixed the copy at the outer door of his house. According to the process server, two witnesses namely Sunderlal Patel and Lochan Prasad Patel were present at the said time and place. The process report only indicates the signature of two witnesses without specifying who has identified the person served and who has witnessed the tender of summons to the appellants, even the address of above-stated two persons is missing in the said process.
15. In the matter of Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Madhusudan2, in similar situation where the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC were not complied with while submitting report by the process server, this Court has set aside the ex parte decree and held in para 7 as under :
"7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record of Civil Suit No. 44-B/2003 and also the record of Misc. Judicial Case No. 17/2004, the testimony of the Process Server Kewal Das and the summons of the defendant issued for 15-11-2004 and the report of service by affixture written by Process Server Kewal Das. The report of Process Server on the summons does not give any detail as to the person who identified the house of the defendant and his wife Kuleshwari and also does not reveal the name of the lady who refused service of notice. The report of Process Server also shows that it has been signed by a witness namely Surendra, who was not examined by the plaintiff/respondent. Process Server Kewal Das, in his testimony in paragraph 3, stated that the name of the person who was present at the time of service by affixture was perhaps Deepak Kumar. Paragraph 4 of the testimony of the Process Server also shows that once neighbouring lady had identified the wife of the defendant. However, the name of that lady was not mentioned by the process server in his report as mandated by 2 2007 (1) CGLJ 314 M.A.No.451/2002 Page 10 of 18 Order V Rule 18 C.P.C. In paragraph 5, the process server also deposed that he came with the plaintiff- decree-holder to the Court and had snacks with him in the hotel. He also admitted that he did not make any payment for the snacks."
16. In the matter of Kunja v. Lalaram and others 3 the M.P. High Court has held that the provisions of Rule 19 of Order 5 of the CPC are mandatory and cast a duty on the Court to make a judicial order while accepting the service effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 17 of Order 5 of the CPC, and observed as under in paragraph 5: -
"5. I have no hesitation to take the view that the provisions of Rule 19 aforequoted are mandatory in real sense of the term and that it casts a duty on the Court to make a judicial order while accepting service effected in the manner prescribed under Rule 17 of Order 5, Civil Procedure Code. I say so because the legislature requires the Court that it "shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit". Because also, the legislature vests jurisdiction in the Court to examine the serving officer even when his report is supported by an affidavit. That the discretion has been duly and judicially exercised even to refuse to examine the serving officer in such a case must be manifested in the order passed under Rule 19 of Order 5, Civil Procedure Code, accepting service thereunder. Any other view, I have no hesitation to say at once, will cause serious injustice to moneyless and numberless litigants in this poor country where justice has to be purchased at a very high price. I must heed the mandate of Art. 39-A of the Constitution to so declare emphatically in unambiguous terms despite my attention being drawn to a decision of a single Judge in Chandansingh, 1969 MPLJ (Note) 21. With due respect, I humbly beg to differ as the view taken by his Lordship does not accord with the constitutional mandate. I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the report (endorsement or the affidavit) of the process server is sacrosanct. If that had been the position, the legislature would not have invested the 3 1987 MPLJ 746 : (AIR 1987 MP 252) M.A.No.451/2002 Page 11 of 18 Court to exercise discretion in the matter of examining the process server by which a valuable right has been created in the aggrieved person to contest validity of service; because his vital right to be heard in the case could be impaired immeasurably with this object it has made the provision. In any case, his Lordship was not called upon to expound on the ambit and scope of Rule 19, directly in issue in this case, though he spoke of Rule 18. The decision, therefore, is distinguishable on facts."
17. In the matter of Baijnath Mishrilal Kachhi v. Harishanker s/o. Mishrilal and others4, the High Court of M.P. while dealing with identical issue held that in case of refusal of service of summons, when the same has been affixed in presence of witnesses and report has been endorsed, it has also to be reported as to who identified the house of the defendant and the name of the person who identified the name of the defendant has to be mentioned, and in para 15 has held as under :
"15. It is therefore, clear that in case of refusal of service of summons, the same has to be affixed in the presence of the witnesses and a report has to be endorsed by the process server in that regard. It has also to be reported by the process server, as to who identified the house of the defendant and he should also mention the names of persons in whose presence the copy of summons was affixed, on the refusal to receive the summons by the defendant."
18. Order 5 Rule 19 of the CPC provides for examination of serving officer, where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may 4 2001 (2) MPLJ 142 M.A.No.451/2002 Page 12 of 18 make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit, and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. This Court in the matter of Moti Chand Jain (died) through LRs v. Mahesh Chand Pal 5 held that where the report of the serving officer is not complying with the mandatory requirement of the provisions contained in Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC, the ex parte decree is liable to be set aside.
19. Thus, the process server is required to file affidavit in Form No.11 of Schedule 1 of the CPC which states as under: -
"AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS-SERVER TO ACCOMPANY RETURN ON A SUMMONS OR NOTICE (Or. 5, R.18) (Title) The Affidavit of, son of make oath/ affirm and say as follows: -
(1) I am a process-server of this Court, (2) On the day of 20 I received a summons/notice issued by the Court of in Suit No. of 20 , in the said Court, dated the day of
20 , for service on .
(3) The said was at the time personally known to me, and I served the said summons/ notice on him/her on the day day of 20 , at about o' clock in the noon by tendering a copy thereof to him/her and requiring his/her signature to the original summons/notice.
(a)
(b)
(a) Here state whether the person served signed or refused to sign the process, and in whose presence.
(b) Signature of process server.
or,
5 AIR 2014 Chhattisgarh 26
M.A.No.451/2002
Page 13 of 18
(3) The said not being personally known
to me accompanied me to and pointed out to
me a person whom he stated to be the said ,
and I served the said summons/notice on him/her on the day of 20 , at about o' clock in the noon at by tendering a copy thereof to him/her and requiring his/her signature to the original summons/notice.
(a)
(b)
(a) Here state whether the person served signed or refused to sign the process, and in whose presence.
(b) Signature of process server.
or,
(3) The said and the house in which he
ordinarily resides being personally known to me, I went to the said house, in and thereon the day of 20 , at about o' clock in the noon, I did not find the said
(a)
(b)
(a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served, with special reference to Order 5, Rules 15 and 17.
(b) Signature of process server.
or,
(3) One accompanied me to and there
pointed out to me which he said was the house in
which ordinarily resides, I did not find the said
there.
(a)
(b)
(a) Enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served, with special reference to Order 5, Rules 15 and 17.
(b) Signature of process server.
or, If substituted service has been ordered, state fully and exactly the manner in which the summons was served with special reference to the terms of the order for substituted service.
M.A.No.451/2002Page 14 of 18
Sworn/Affirmed by the said before me this day of 20 .
Empowered under Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to administer the oath to deponents."
20. Thus, return of summons/notice should be accompanied by the affidavit of the process server in the above-stated form of the first Schedule of Appendix 'B' of the CPC. If return report of the process server is without affidavit, the Court has to record the statement of the process server and after making further enquiry, the Court should hold that the summons has been duly served or not. [See the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Baburao Soma Bhoi v. Abdul Raheman Abdul Rajjak Khatik6 followed by the M.P. High Court in Baijnath Mishrilal Kachhi (supra).]
21. Though, in the instant case, affidavit in the shape of hukumnama was filed before the trial Court by the process server and reproduced in para 10 of this order, but it is only hukumnama, it is neither a complete affidavit nor in Form No.11 of Schedule I of the CPC, as such, the report of the process server in this case is a report which lacks procedural requirements to be mentioned by Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC, particularly, the process server has not stated firstly, who has identified the house of the defendant and secondly, the address of the witnesses in whose presence the copy of the summons was affixed in the house of the defendants, and the process server was not 6 (1999) AI HCC 3725 M.A.No.451/2002 Page 15 of 18 examined. Thus, the trial Court has committed legal error in not examining the process server before proceeding ex parte against the defendants on the basis of the report followed by the report of the process server, and not in accordance with the requirement of Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC.
22. The trial Court has proceeded ex parte against the appellants by recording order sheet dated 30-6-1997 which states as under: -
^^30-06-1997 mRrjoknh dh vksj ls Jh vksRryokj] vf/koDrkA mRrjoknhx.k dzekad 1 ls 7 usa uksfVl ysus ds bUdkj fd;k gS] vuqifLFkr gS ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh xbZA mRrjoknh dz-8 dks uksfVl rkehyh ckn okil izkIr mifLFkr ugha ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh xbZA vafre rdZ 07-08-1997A^^
23. The provisions of Order 5 Rule 19 of the CPC are mandatory in real sense of the terms and it casts a duty on the Court to pass a judicial order in the manner provided in Rules 17 and 19 of Order 5 of the CPC because the legislature has required the Court that it shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or the order of service as it thinks fit. It is also clear from the fact that even if the summons report is submitted along with affidavit then also the Court can examine the process server to find out as to whether the summons is duly served or not. It must appear from the perusal of the order declaring summons has been duly served. The appeal Court should have passed a judicial order in this respect, applying judicial mind before declaring that the M.A.No.451/2002 Page 16 of 18 summons is duly served as in other view it would cause serious injustice to the other party, which has been proceeded ex parte and ultimately suffer an ex parte decree. Therefore, I hold that the trial Court has committed serious legal error in proceeding ex parte against the defendant holding that summons was duly served without making any enquiry as to whether the defendant was duly served or not taking recourse to Rule 19 of Order 5 of the CPC, as neither affidavit in prescribed form was filed nor the process server was examined and it does not reflect any application of judicial mind to declare that the summons is duly served. Therefore, I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that while proceeding ex parte, the trial Court has committed serious legal error and thereafter passed ex parte judgment and decree against the appellant/ defendant.
24. Now, this would bring me to the question of limitation. Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes as under: -
123 To set aside a decree passed ex The date of the decree parte or to re-hear an appeal or where the decree or heard ex parte. summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree.
Explanation.--
For the purpose of this article, substituted service under Rule 20 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not be deemed to be due service.
25. A bare perusal of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would M.A.No.451/2002 Page 17 of 18 show that the period of 30 days has been prescribed to set aside the decree ex parte and the time from which the period begins to run 30 days is the date of decree and where summons or notice is not duly served then thirty days from the date of knowledge of decree.
26. In the foregoing paragraphs, I have already dealt with the summons of civil appeal was not duly served on the appellants/ defendants and the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 1233 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply from the date when the appellants/defendants got the knowledge of the appeal.
27. It is the case of the appellants / defendants that they came to the knowledge of the decree first time on 25-5-1999 when it was pronounced by the Kotwar that decree has been passed against the present defendants by the appellate Court and immediately they moved an application and possession was taken in favour of the plaintiffs and on 21-6-1999, application for rehearing was filed in which the plaintiffs were noticed and the plaintiffs have filed reply, but that Court only on the basis of arguments, rejected the application and even did not hold any enquiry to find out as to whether summons/notices were duly served to the appellants or not and straightway rejected the application for readmission/rehearing of appeal. Thus, the date of knowledge of the appellants/defendants is 25-5-1999 and that is within one month from the said date i.e. on 21-6-1999, application for rehearing was filed which was within the period of limitation. M.A.No.451/2002 Page 18 of 18
Since, in the instant case, the appellate Court has not made any enquiry regarding service of summons on the appellants/defendants and refusal of summons reported by the serving officer without containing the requirement as indicated in Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC, there was no appropriate affidavit of the process server as required in Form No.11 of Schedule I of the CPC and the mandatory requirement of Order 5 Rule 19 of the CPC has not been complied with, the ex parte decree dated 2- 12-1997 is liable to be set aside, and consequently, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC also deserves to be allowed.
28. The impugned order as well as the judgment and decree dated 2- 12-1997 both are set aside and the first appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is restored to its original number to the file of the District Judge, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Since the first appeal was filed on 6-3- 1997, the first appellate Court is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of record and after appearance of parties on 30-1-2017. Record be sent back forthwith.
29. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma