( 1 ) ALL these Appeals were admitted by this Court after condoning the delay on 24. 11. 99 and the notices were made returnable on 20. 12. 99. However, the matters came up before the court on 21. 12. 99 and on that day Mr. J. A. Dave appeared in First Appeals Nos. 5854, 5855, 5859, 5861 and 5865 of 1995. It was also submitted that Mr. M. P. Prjapati is appearing for respondents in other seven Appeals, although Mr. Prajapati himself was not present. On the request of Mr. J. A. Dave the matters were directed to be posted for today to be taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, it is given out today by Mr. J. A. DAve that Mr. M. P. Prajapti was not appearing for respondents in the seven matters and the respondents in these seven Appeals have not been served. Notices issued by the Court had not returned back.

( 3 ) MR. TANNA has invited our attention to the order dt. 13. 8. 99 passed in Civil Application No. 8548 of 1999 in Civil Application No. 4483 of 1995 in First Appeal No. 5854 of 1995 and identical Application in other Appeals whereby for the reasons stated in that order dt. 13. 8. 99, the Court had passed an order to the following effect:-"for the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds. The copy of the summons to be served on the opponents, shall be affixed in conspicuous place in the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, where the Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 18595/98 was heard and decided. The copy of the summons shall also be affixed on conspicuous part of the premises of the opponent where the opponent is known to have carried on business. Moreover, as prayed for in the application, an advertisement in Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad Edition, shall also be given by the applicant. The Application accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (J. M. Panchal,j) (R. P. Dholakia,j) Date: 13/8/1999. "

( 4 ) MR. Tanna has submitted that thereafter in the Applications notices were sought to be served, as ordered by the Court, and a copy, as was published in the Gujarat Samachar, has also been produced. Besides this, no one had appeared for respondents in the Applications filed in these Appeals for the purpose of condonation of delay and the delay was condoned on 24. 11. 99.

( 5 ) THEREFORE, we are faced with the situation as to whether we should still direct the service to be effected on the respondents in the seven Appeals in the same manner and repeat the whole process and ordeal for the purpose of the service of the notices of the Appeals, as was done with regard to the applications for condonation of delay filed in these very Appeals. It is also given out that the question involved is pure question of law and the same is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Oriental Insurance, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1498, Paras 63 to 68 and this Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was later on taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court without interfering with the view taken by this Court dismissed the matters by holding that even the tenants will have a right to file the Appeal. In the present matters we are not concerned with the question of right to appeal by tenants

( 6 ) THE question involved in these Appeals is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court, as aforesaid, and that the same was upheld by the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, is not disputed even by Mr. J. A. Dave, who has appeared for the respondents in the five identical Appeals 5854, 5855, 5859, 5861 and 5865 of 1995 of this group of twelve Appeals.

( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the respondents in seven Appeals are fully aware about the respective Appeals in which they are respondents and they had not appeared when the question of condonation of delay was taken up by this Court through Civil Applications despite service in the manner as ordered by the Court on 13. 8. 99 and thus no useful purpose can be served by keeping th