P.K. Lohra, J.

Respondent-Applicants, by laying instant application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, have prayed for rehearing of Civil First Appeal No.388/2010, decided on 8th of August, 2018. The Court, after hearing arguments on appeal, reserved judgment on 1st of August, 2018 and then pronounced the same on 8th of August, 2018 by allowing the appeal.

2. Apposite facts are that appellant-non-applicant preferred an appeal against judgment & decree dated 1st of November, 2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below dismissed his suit for injunction and possession of suit property. The appeal was admitted on 23rd of December, 2010. Thereafter, arguments were heard on stay petition and the same was disposed of on 10th of May, 2011 with a direction to respondent-applicants not to alienate the suit property so as to create third party right. The record of learned Court below was requisitioned and, considering status of the appellant-non-applicant as senior citizen, hearing of the appeal was expedited. On 12th of October, 2017, arguments were heard in part and the matter was posted for further hearing on 23rd of October, 2017. Later on, upon joint request of learned counsel for the parties for exploring possibility of amicable settlement in the matter, hearing of the appeal was deferred on 14th of March, 2018.

3. Once again, when the matter came up on 11th of April, 2018, none was present for the respondents and on behalf of appellant it was submitted that there is no chance of amicable settlement between the rival parties. It is in that background, Court heard arguments on behalf of the appellant. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 25th of April, 2018, matter was deferred in absence of learned counsel for the respondents. Yet again, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 9th of May, 2018, a request was made on behalf of respondent-applicants to defer the matter for exploring possibility of settlement. When the matter came up on 23rd of May, 2018, none was present for the respondents, and therefore, it was posted for 4th of July, 2018. On later other dates also, matter was deferred. Lastly, on 1st of August, 2018, when the appeal was called out for hearing, on behalf of respondent-applicants, learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mehta pleaded no instructions and for seeking adjournment submitted that arguing counsel Mr. Falgun Buch is out of country. Considering the submissions of Mr. Mehta, a detailed order was drawn by the Court that umpteen opportunities are given to the learned counsel for the respondents but the matter is not argued. The Court further recorded that hearing is concluded and judgment is reserved. The complete text of order dated 1st of August, 2018, reads as under:

4. Xxx xxx xxx.

"In the present appeal on 19.10.2016, on one appeared on behalf of the respondent and this Court granted last opportunity to the respondent and it was further directed that if no one will appear on behalf of the respondent, then arguments of only appearing party will be heard and on the next date again no one appeared for the respondent. On 01.12.2016 again no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 12.10.2017 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the matter was kept part heard. Later again on 23.10.2017, 06.11.2017 and 09.11.2017, counsel for the parties sought adjournment. On 14.03.2018 learned counsel for the parties submitted that there is a chance of amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, some time may be granted. But no such settlement took place between the parties. On 11.04.2018 again none remained present for the respondent and learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no chance for amicable settlement between the parties. Then again 25.04.2018, 09.05.2018 adjournment was sought by respondent and again on 23.05.2018 none remained present for the respondent. On 04.07.2018 and 11.07.2018 again the matter was adjourne