RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Mr. Nikhil Chhoker proxy counsel for Mr. Qayamuddin stated to be Advocate for the appellant no.2 appears and seeks adjournment. None appears for the appellant no.1 and appellant no.3.

2. This being an appeal of the year 1997 and there being no cause disclosed for the adjournment sought, the same has been refused. A perusal of the order sheet also shows that adjournments were sought by Mr. Nikhil Chhoker, Advocate on 25th February, 2013 and 15th April, 2013. There is no reason to keep this appeal pending specially when the appellants themselves do not appear to be interested in pursuing the same.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.8 who alone besides the counsel for the respondent no.7 MCD appears, has been asked to address.

4. The counsel for the respondent no.8 has contended that the suit from which this appeal arises was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under sub Section (3) thereof, no appeal lies against the order of dismissal thereof. He thus contends that this appeal is not maintainable.

5. Section 6 of the Act is as under:-

“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.-

(1) If any person is dispossessed without