S. Bindra, S. S. Dalal and D. D. Sharma, for the appellants.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 1966 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos.
We have to companysider this companytention on its merits.
D. Mahajan, for respondents In C.As.
2168 69 .
The Pretoria appellant had lost the battle all along the line.
Modifying the orders dated 8 12 1966 in L.P. 1366 of 1966 so that the security for the respondents companyts deposited in the said appeal may be companysidered also as security for the companyts of the Respondents in the 3 appeals arising from the S.C.As.
2167/68 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Shri Bindra, learned companynsel for the appellants submits that the earlier adjudication by this Court amounted to a judgment per incuriam and did number bind him or the Court.
Sarjoo Prasad, Uma Mehta, R. K. Mehta and M. L. Jain,, for the respondent in C.A. No.
186 15, 189 D and 190 D of 1966.
2167 to 2169 of 1968.
However, the appellants before us moved this Court that with a view to save money and energy, one of the four may be directed to be got ready and disposed of and the others may, thereafter, follow the fate of the first.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. A companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of four appeals, the points companyered by all being admittedly identical Special leave was granted by this Court and thus four appeals came into existence here.
He was thus free,to argue on the merits, especially the holding on the civil companyrts jurisdiction, and the matter was at large.
On this basis C.A. 2556 of 1966 was heard at length and decided adversely to the present appellants.
63 D, 65 D 66 D of 1965.
