It appears that there was an order to remove this defect and the order appeared to be of a peremptory character, probably, there was some laxity on the part of the appellants and the defect was number removed and the appeal was dismissed on Jan. 2, 1978 on the short ground of failure to remove the defect and number compliance with the peremptory order No, 10 made by the Court on Sept. 30, 1975.
An application f6r restoration of the First Appeal being MJC 17/1978 was moved on behalf of the appellants.
MJC 12 of 1980 R was moved for restoration of First Appeal No.
Respondents filed a suit against the appellants and the suit ended in a declaration that the present appellants have numberright to charge the amount claimed and a refund was decreed to the extent of Rs.
To identify the hyper technicality resorted to by the High Court, a few facts may be stated.
During the pendency of the appeal from 1972 to 1978.
Against this decree in favour fo the respondents, the appellants preferred an appeal, being FA 1248/1972, in the High Court of Patna Ranchi Bench .
This application was strenuously opposed on behalf of the repondents.
70,897.
it transpired that the letter of authority Vakalatnama of the learned advocate appearing for the present appellants, was number placed on record.
A fresh application No.
