The word 'disposal' in Rule 8 of Chapter 31 of the Original Side Rules does not mean only 'dismissal', but includes 'dismissal' and other orders as the court may think fit.

( 1 ) ON 2nd May, 1983 the appellant made an application before M. M. Dutt and Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, JJ and obtained an order granting leave to the appellant to file the above appeal against the order dated 3rd Feburary, 1983 of Mrs. Monjula Bose, J. without a certified copy thereof on usual undertaking and for stay of the said order. Pursuant to the said leave memorandum of appeal was filed without a certified copy of the said order. The above application was made returnable on 6th May, 1983. No order for stay of the operation of the said order dated 3rd February, 1983 was made. On the returnable date, i. e. 6th May, 1983 the appeal court gave directions for filing of affidavits in the said application. The said application is still pending.

( 2 ) AS there were certain mistakes in the cause title of the appeal an order was made on the 16th June, 1983 for amendment of the cause title of the appeal. Thereafter the appellant took extension of time and on 5th August, 1983 cause title of the appeal was corrected and/or amended.

( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 through their Advocates on Record, M/s. Bose and Mitra wrote a letter to the Registrar, Original Side, to set down the appeal before the Hon'ble Court as the appellant did not file the paper book within time.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on 8th February, 1985 the appeal appeared in the special list before Dipak Kumar Sen and Ajit Kumar Sengupta, JJ but their Lordships released the same. Thereafter, on 27th February, 1985 the appeal appeared in the special list before us. On that day we directed the appellant to file an affidavit explaining the reason why paper book was not filed within time. We also gave leave to the appearing respondents to file an affidavit. Pursuant to such leave an affidavit affirmed by the appellant on 16th March, 1985 was filed. The respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 filed an affidavit affirmed then on 15th March, 1985.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER on the 20th March, 1983 when the matter appeared again in our list a point was taken on behalf of the appearing respondents that as no notice of appeal was taken out by the appellant and delivered to the Sheriff for service on the respondents in compliance with Rule 8 of Chapter 31 of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court the appeal should be dismissed. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for taking out and service of the notice of appeal. In view of the contentions of the parties we gave leave to the appellant to file an affidavit explaining why notice of appeal was not taken out and handed over to the Sheriff for service upon the respondents in time. We also gave leave to the appearing respondents to file an affidavit. Pursuant to such leave one Subir Chandra Bose, Advocate of M/s. N. C. Bose and Co. , Advocates-on-Record of the appellant, filed an affidavit affirmed by him on 27th March, 1985. The respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 filed an affidavit affirmed by them on 29th March, 1985.

( 6 ) THE question that arose for our consideration was if the appellant does not take out and deliver to the Sheriff a Notice of Appeal in time for service on the respondent as required under Chapter 31 Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules then whether the Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. As there is no direct authority on the point involved in this case we invited Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Barrister-in-Law to assist us in the matter as amicus curiae. Following the usual tradition of the Bar, Mr. Dipankar Gupta has appeared in the matter as amicus curiae and rendered assistance to the Court.

( 7 ) IN his affidavit affirmed on 16th March, 1985 the appellant has stated that before the paper book could be prepared and filed it was discovered that an inadvertent mistake crept in the cause title. On 16th June, 1983 an order was made for amendment of the cause title. When the Advocate-on-Record of the appellant wanted to cause such amendment to be carried out in t