1. Heard.

2. By consent the appeals are heard finally.

3. Following substantial questions of law are framed :- (I) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in hearing the appeals exparte in view of order of status quo passed by this Court on 25.10.2005? (II) Whether the appellants herein were justified in not participating in the proceedings before the lower appellate Court on the ground that there was a stay to the appellate proceedings granted by this Court by an order dated 25.10.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application no. 16 of 2005 with connected 77 revision applications?

4. All these appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 5.3.2008, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhule dismissing Civil Appeal no. 69 of 2004 and 77 other connected appeals.

5. The facts leading to the appeals stated in short are that the appellants claim to be the sufferers of partition between India and Pakistan. They or their ancestors migrated to India after the partition and settled in the city of Dhule. For earning a living they started business by constructing some structures adjoining to a public road commonly known as the Jail road in the city of Dhule. According to the respondent Municipal Council the structures are erected by committing encroachment on the public road and/or the land abutting the public road belonging to it. The respondent initiated a drive for removal of the unauthorised encroachments made on a large scale on various roads in the city of Dhule. When the drive came to the shops of the appellants, each of them filed separate suits for an injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing their structures. By a common judgment and order dated 6.5.1995, the Civil Judge Junior Division, partially decreed all the suits injuncting the respondent municipal council from demolishing the suit shops until some other suitable business premises were made available to them.

6. Initially the respondent municipal council did not file any appeal against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge Junior Division dated 6.5.1995. However, subsequently 78 appeals were filed in the District Court, Dhule, on 12.8.1998 alongwith applications for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. The applications were allowed on 7.2.2004 and delay in filing of the appeals was condoned. The appellants challenged the orders of condonation of delay initially by filing of writ petitions which were subsequently converted into civil revision applications. The civil revision applications were numbered as civil revision application no. 16 of 2005 to civil revision application no. 90 of 2005. The civil revision applications came up before this Court on 25.10.2005 when the Court passed the following order:- " Per Court : . Heard Shri Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel states that, the directions given by this Court, vide order dated 16.3.2005, have been complied with.

3. Fix the Civil Revision Applications for admission on 24.11.2005, if the office objections, mentioned in objection form are removed. . In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo."

7. While the aforementioned civil revision applications filed by the appellants were pending the appeals filed by the respondent municipal council became ready and were listed for hearing before the District Judge, Dhule. In the appeals, appellants herein made an application before the District Judge, on 29.8.2006 pointing out that by an order dated 25.10.2005 this Court has granted status quo. They urged that the order of status-quo could only mean or interpreted to mean stay to the hearing of the appeals before the District Court. The District Judge however rejected the applications and proceeded with the hearing of the appeals fi