ORDER :

Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the appellant. A suit for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by one Manmohan Singh, Respondent 2 herein. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership and possession over the suit land; Defendants 1 to 3 became owners perfecting the title by adverse possession; and that the State, being a necessary party, was not impleaded.

2. The plaintiff filed the first appeal calling in question the validity and correctness of the decree passed by the trial court. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The State and the defendants in the suit filed two separate second appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court stood confirmed. Hence, these appeals by the State.

3. The respondents, despite service of notice, have remained unrepresented.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. Issue 4 reads, "whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties?" Deali