The appellate companyrt allowed both the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs suit by one judgment and ordered a companyy of the judgment to be placed on the file of the companynected appeal.
The dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the State on the ground of delay number being companydoned companyld number in law affect the maintainability of the writ appeal 1 AIR 1966 SC 1332 1966 All LJ 578 ILR 1966 2 All 232 which had been filed by the appellant within time and was pending final hearing in the High Court.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding inter alia that the entire scheme as approved, was inconsistent and number capable of implementation and that the writ petitioner 1st.
The plaintiffs preferred two separate appeals.
4343 of 1980 in the High Court of Madras seeking quashing of the scheme of nationalisation approved under Section 68 d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959 as published in GOMs No.
675 of 1982.
respondent herein was entitled to have his renewal application companysidered on the said basis.
The State as well as the appellant were respondents in one and the same writ petition, against the decision of which they had filed separate appeals.
In the two appeals filed subsequently, the earlier order dismissing the two appeals was held to operate as res judicata and the two subsequent appeals were accordingly dismissed.
675 of 1982 within the period of limitation.
The appellant who had been impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No.
When the writ appeal filed by the appellant came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the same was dismissed on the sole ground that since the writ appeal filed by the State had already been dismissed by the Division Bench, the writ appeal filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata and was as such number maintainable.
The appeals were heard together and disposed of by the same judgment though separate decrees were prepared.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR A.S. ANAND, J. Leave granted.
The order in the writ petition companyld have been challenged by one appeal only unlike in Sheodan Singh case1 where four appeals were required to be filed in law against the four decrees even though deciding the companymon issue relating to title.
While numberice was issued on the writ appeal filed by the appellant, in the writ appeal filed by the State numberice was issued in the companydone delay application.
On 4 3 1986 a Division Bench of the High Court, declined to companydone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the State.
In Narhari v. Shanker2 on the suit of the plaintiff being decreed in the trial companyrt, two separate appeals were taken by two set of defendants.
579 Home dated 7 4 1975 and for certain other reliefs.
One of the appeal was held time barred and invoking the principle of res judicata the High Court dismissed the other appeal also.
The State of Tamil Nadu, also a respondent in the writ petition, filed a separate writ appeal but beyond 150 days of the period of limitation, along with an application seeking companydonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 9 1989 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.
675 of 1982 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 19 9 1989 dismissing appellants Writ Appeal No.
The first respondent, a private transport operator in the State of Andhra Pradesh who at the material time was operating his stage carriage on the inter State route Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh to Salem in Tamil Nadu , filed Writ Petition No.
