HIGHeCMJf^OFCHHaarTlSQ^RH.BII.ASPiaR SecQndABBeaKNo.2S61of2004 API:!EL1..ANT-S/: (Defendants) n'mui RESPGNDENTS/: (Plaihtiffs) !:i|l!1 •S( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Smt. SykBani; VVidow.of late^Knya; Urany, aged abeut 22 years, ^ ; Sri l^maB, Son offK^m C^m aged abo|t 12 yearsH^i^g^S^ . n^yral guardian Smt. SBKHnpyApp. :No;1.,'^^/-.,:.:'l::.- •;:•':/.:^^ • Sri Rasnath, Son of tadru ?(3ranv, aged about SOyeare. .* ^-. •: . • . . .•.••.....• .: . • • . - . •' . " ' • ' . • Ram Vilas, Son of Padro UraTOaged '. :about^7':years. .;:•:' 'l'.;;;:''' Kismatiya^SVidow of:late Sipan, aged about.::'44^years.'';.';^\/,':;::?;:1 '.::'?-:,.;., (AllaiieresidetrtofvHlageBali^ (3c RatK)ft^A9rieulturist,,^hsi(^^ ©istnet^Sut-gujsi—C.fS.) Versus ':-1 • ,' , : •: :i:.:'' i®nsPa;ti^liJirarlY,:'iSc>riot|Iymla|Ura^ ,:;.'"agecl|aj|8!ag3®|yeEUS.^;"'•%;';i:' •::'?':t^::":':::'; - ^SriS;Se^|si.l)aiwffi§Qn':,ol;;-'l'tifTila|l.)ranv, ,'iaQe ^bimi|S23iyga^',';:;';;;: ^::,'.;i^^'^ Sunil iBran^ Son of Tumla; l.lran^ged about20sye9rs. ^ ; Shiva, Son <3f Jagan Uranv, aged^out !,W-^ -I1. 2. 3. 4. .S.^hitatMlanv.Sono^ ;3Bout^tyea^':i':,:,,\''.-^;:^'f:';'::',^ ^^^^^^^ ^ 13©ysais%'^K^'''•::,'::'':''':^';' ''":,'::," 7. ,l&malas^n of y^an -IJranv, ^agKt ^'/,about,3.4^yeare.. ^ ';.:, ' ^?::;!. .:':::;:..:':: 8. Srrit.^Jaroni, VViapwgpf^ ^ :":','. •ageda|3iout|@5'^yeare.,:.^ --,;s;;^.;,.^':^:::...,'.;^ / (All^ are'ires^^ of^|ag|^!ram}Mr, TaliSil^F'ali iKstrict|Su®uja—|e.G.y^ t • ." :': • ; :."" ..^f '."•\.''fr^ {AppealuhderSectiQn^pOortBe^CG|^oFlG i)lai^dyre,^9^ l^ ; ^r.^.K.Pancley.counselfOTt^ i-\ :^:'{V:' •,:^. •;: SiTOlfeBencM::'il^n'MeW.®f>."S^l»na.J' ---•-i ::.:^^T;'.;;^-: t uEiSiaSfc : it-y'-iif'taii'-> '• ^Vi ^sss :;a^y^ y» .liil?.!' ;t'^1',' 'BfW x^- ^W'U.iSSiiS iBla S nl Kse*-*' iClfna l:ll! ORALJUDGMENT (18-10-2010y S'iS 1. Heardonadmission. 2. By thisappeal urider Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged legality & propriety of the judgment & ^decFee dated 24-1-2004 passgd bythe AdditionalDistrietJudge.Lmk ; Gourt, Ramanujganj in Qjvil Appeaj N0.78-A/2002, reversing the judgment&decreedated 12-7-2001 passedbytheCivilJudgeClass-1, RamanujganJinCivilSuitNo.11-A/2001. 3. Case of the respondents in a nutshell is that the respondents/plaintiffe have filed suit against theappellahts/defendants, appellant No.2 herein was minor at that time and the trial Court tias directed to deposit Rs. 1 ,OQO/- and also directed for appointment of guardian of the minor defendant, but the respondents have failed to deposit requisite fees and, tKerefore, finallythe suit was dismissed yide order dated 11-10-2000. AgaintherespondentsHavefiledapplieationon 19-10-2000 for depositing.themoney^dij^e^'byitheCourt.saffl^^^ i wtiieti^was ctia||enged before the IO)V®FaRpellate Court in Gh/il Appeal No.78-A/2002. After cbnsidering fhe question of UmitatibFi and providing opportynity of hearing to the respondents, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial Court fop fresh trial and also directed to deposjt requisite fees of Rs.1,000/- within thirty days.; •"' • ; : ' ; ' : : • , ' •:,; ' 4. The order passed tiy e trial Court was under Order 17 Rule 3 ofthe G.P.C. same was appealable. Finally the lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and remitted the ease. 1 do not fincl anysubstantial injusticein remandingthe casetodecidethecaseafreshafterproviding opportunity of^hearing to the parties. Consequently, t do not find any substantiat question of law for decision of this second appeal. TKe appealisdismissedattheadmjssionstageitself.Nooi'derastoGosts. 5. M.(C.)P.No.651/2004&I.A:N6.148772004standdisposedof. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ifeiiii^iiLlt;^ :i;;;:3^Ste^;