SA 28/2016 on’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. H Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent raised the objection that this appeal is not maintainable for the reason that two first appeals were preferred by Mr. Awadh Kumar challenging the same judgment delving the claim and counter-claim. Appeal No. 7/2015 and 8/2015, both were accepted and the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 rendered, by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, was set aside with the result the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. At the same time, the counter-claim raised by Smt. Archana and Smt. Anuradha was dismissed. So, it was contended that the appellants/defendants were duty bound to prefer two separate appeals against the said judgment and, if they have not done so, then this only second appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On the other hand, learned Counsel on behalf of the second appellants submitted that only one decree was prepared after the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court. Hence, there was no need to prefer two separate appeals and, therefore, this appeal is maintainable. Both learned Counsels seek time to show the case law on this point. List in the week commencing 05.12.2016. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 18.11.2016 Prabodh