R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 2.12.2010 Lal Chand and Anr. ... Appellants Versus Sukhbir Singh & Company, & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The appellants–Lal Chand and Beer Wanti, had been impleaded as defendants No. 6 & 7 in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 6/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. l to 5 from recovering the amount of `10,09,852/- from them on the basis of the warrants or other coercive means. That suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jagadhari, vide judgment and decree dated 9.6.2007. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree. The present appellants also preferred an appeal. Both the appeals were heard together by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari and were dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2009. In respective of the appeal filed by the present appellants, it was observed that no adverse finding was recorded by the trial Court against them and as such the appeal so preferred by them was not maintainable. On 21.9.2010, while passing the order, this Court observed that the question arises:- “Whether the appellants can maintain this appeal?” R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to satisfy that this appeal by the appellants is maintainable. He has tried to refer to Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C, which cannot be said to be applicable in this case. No finding was recorded against them by the trial Court or by the first Appellate Court and no decree was passed against them. In these circumstances, this appeal is not maintainable and dismissed as such. December 2, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge