Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.: - A common judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of four appeals, the points covered by all being admittedly identical. Special leave was granted by this Court and thus four appeals came into existence here. However, the appellants before us moved this Court that with a view to save money and energy, one of the four may be directed to be got ready and disposed of and the others may, thereafter, follow the fate of the first. On this basis C. A. 2556 of 1966 was heard at length and decided adversely to the present appellants. Shri Bindra, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the earlier adjudication by this Court amounted to a judgment per incuriam and did not bind him or the Court. He was thus free to argue on the merits, especially the holding on the civil court s jurisdiction, and the matter was at large. We have to consider this contention on its merits.

2. Certain background facts bearing on the narrow question above posed serve to appreciate the point made. The present batch of appeals, as already stated, emanated from a judgment covering them all rendered by the Delhi High Court which itself arose out of a like common judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court and so on down the pyramid to the base viz., the decree of the trial Court. The present appellant had lost the battle all along the line. For brevity s sake, we may content ourselves with the statement that the Courts had been invited to pronounce upon the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon the controversy which related to the Delhi Land Reforms Act with special reference to relevant provisions barring suits. In short the point about the civil court s power to go into a land reform litigation had been considered and adversely decided, so much so it is not correct for the appellants to say that the matter had, by grave inadvertence, been missed. We are not examining the soundness of the actual decision on the merits since indeed we feel that the appeals must fail in limine and no principle of judgment per incuriam can salvage the case.

3. At an early stage, an application was made before this Court embracing all the appeals, including the present three, which runs thus:

"In the matter of: Civil Appeal No. 2556 of 1966 and In the matter of Appeals arising from the orders dated 14-8-1968 of the Delhi High Court in S. C A. No. 186-D/66, l89-D of l966 and l90-D/66 and In the matter of Mamleshwar Pershad and another.

x x x x x

The petitioners (appellants) accordingly pray that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to pass orders

(1) Consolidating the 4 appeals abovementioned.

(2) Modifying the orders dated 8-12-1966 in S. L. P. 1366 of 1966 so that the security for the respondents costs deposited in the said appeal may be considered also as security for the costs of the respondents in the 3 appeals arising from the S. C. As. Nos. 186-D, l89-D and 190-D of 1966.

(3) That in case the appellants are required to furnish further security apart from the amount deposited in Civil Appeal No 2556 of 1966, time may be suitably extended for such deposit and delay in depositing within the time allowed by the Rules may be condoned.

(4) Modifying the directions regarding the preparation of record so that the proceedings in the High Courts to be printed in the appeal No. 2556 of 1966 be read as record in the three other appeals afore-mentioned and that the record for the said three other appeals may be printed only so as to include the proceedings in the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Courts; and

(5) Such further or other directions may be made as this Hon ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

4. What needs to be underscored is the appellant s own prayer that the four appeals be consolidated. The reason given is tell-tale:

"That only one judgment of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeals is impugned before your Lordships in all the 4 appeals abovementioned. It is there fore in the interest o