This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the above said order of the High Court.
Both the suits were tried together and disposed of by one companymon judgment resulting into two decrees based on one judgment.
The appellant moved an application for restoration of the appeal in the High Court which application was registered as MJC 210/97.
Another suit, in the nature of cross suit, was filed by heirs of Churaman Pasi disputing the title of the appellant.
10/80 in the District Court.
The appellant lost in both the suits.
He died.
This application too came to be dismissed by the High Court by a brief order a reading whereof indicates that the High Court looked into the merits of the appeal also and formed an opinion that restoration was unmerited.
The application was rejected and companysequently the appeal was also dismissed as having abated.
Feeling aggrieved by such judgment of the District Court, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court which, unfortunately, came to be dismissed in default of appearance.
As regards the very same immovable property, two suits came to be filed.
One suit was filed by the appellant seeking eviction of one Churaman Pasi alleging him to be a tenant in the suit property.
O R D E R Arising out of S.L.P. C No.55 of 2000 Leave granted.
In TA No.9/80 Churaman Pasi was the sole respondent.
The appellant moved an application seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of Churaman Pasi and seeking companydonation of delay in filing the application, also seeking setting aside of abatement.
Shorn of details the bare necessary facts for decision in this appeal are numbered hereinafter.
He filed two appeals registered as TA No.9/80 and TA No.
