Facts leading to filing of this appeal is a glaring example of how litigants can be successful in taking undue advantage of beneficial procedural laws. The reasons that follow in this judgment would act as mirror to unravel this factual matrix.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the Prl. District Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.2/2005 dated 31.10.2009 whereunder appeal has been allowed and partial judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995 passed in O.S.No.219/1994 by the Prl. Munsiff, Shimoga decreeing the suit for specific performance against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 has been set aside and suit itself has been dismissed.

3. This Court, by order dated 19.01.2010 has admitted the appeal for adjudication of the following substantial questions of law:

(1) “Whether the first respondent was competent to challenge the partial decree ranted in favour of the appellant, when the said partial decree did not apply to the first respondent? And

(2) Whether the first respondent not having contested the suit was in a position to challenge the final decree as well?”

4. In order to answer the above substantial questions of law, it would be necessary to state the his