The High Court Rules as they earlier stood before the amendment by numberification dated 23.12.2008 provided that Regular first appeals should be heard by a division bench of two Judges.
When the appeals came up before the Division Bench of the High Court on 30.1.2009, the division bench numbered that all four appeals were interconnected, arising out of the same suit.
The respondents filed a suit against the appellants in the year 2000 for recovery of possession of the suit premises and mesne profits.
The said suit was decreed on 23.8.2003 in so far as the prayer for possession.
The learned single Judge on 5.5.2010, rejected the application on the ground that remedy of the appellants lied elsewhere.
Thereafter, the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave, challenging the orders dated 30.1.2009 and 20.3.2009.
The division bench directed that RFA Nos.878/2003 and 912/2003 in which hearing had number companymenced, to be listed before a single Judge.
In view of it, the appeals filed by the appellants and respondents were heard in part by a division bench, prior to 23.12.2008.
878/2003 and 912/2003 were filed by the tenants of the suit premises.
When the matters thereafter came up before the learned single Judge, the appellants filed an application that the appeals will have to be heard by Division Bench.
The prayer for mesne profits was rejected.
RFA No.732/2003 was filed by the respondents.
RFA No.855/2003 was filed by the appellants.
732/2003 and 855/2003 had been substantially heard, they were retained on the file of the division bench for companypleting the hearing and disposal.
Four appeals were filed against the said judgment and decree.
As RFA Nos.
Leave granted.
RFA Nos.
The hearing of the other two appeals was number companymenced.
Heard.
