The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Appellate Court to decide on applications filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the consequences of failing to do so.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellants have prayed for the following relief:

"That in the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, the appellants/plaintiffs humbly pray that this appeal may very kindly be allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court may very kindly be set aside throughout with costs. In the alternative, the appellants/plaintiffs humbly pray that since the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are against law and facts on record, the case may be sent for re-trial under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23 A CPC."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are as under:

Appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs) filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') from interfering over the possession of the plaintiffs upon property known as 'Him Prastha Bhawan and Central Hotel Annexe' comprised in Khasra Nos. 62/2 and 490/62/A, measuring 1016 square yards 3 square feet. Pursuant to order dated 02.06.1984 purportedly passed by defendant No. 3 and for restraining the defendants from realizing the rent of the property from its tenants etc. As per the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 was a Private Limited Company and property known as Central Hotel Estate situated in Shimla was an evacuee property and same formed part of compensation pool, which was put to auction under the orders of Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur in four different lots, namely, (i) Lot No. 119 comprising Central Hotel Main Bldg. And land attached thereto; (ii) Lot No. 119(a) comprising of Central Hotel Annexe; (iii) Lot No. 119(b) comprising of stable and servant Qrs.; and (iv) Lot No. 119(c) comprising of Central Hotel and additional house above the stables. Out of these four lots, Central Hotel Main building, i.e., lot No. 119 was purchased by one Shri Kala Ram Khanna, Benamidar of Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar for a sum of Rs.67,225/-. Said Kala Ram Khanna was issued sale certificate on 29.03.1963 with regard to the property purchased by him on behalf of Shakuntala Kochhar as per the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Act') as also Rules made thereunder, wherein the boundaries and details of the property sold to Kala Ram Khanna were also mentioned. Said Kala Ram Khanna, sometime in July 1963 relinquished all his rights, titled and interest in the property in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar, who was the real and actual owner of the property in issue and on whose behalf, Sh. Kala Ram Khanna was the Benamidar of the property. As per the plaintiffs, Shakuntla Kochhar was the actual owner of the property known Central Hotel Main Building bearing lot No. 119 and land attached thereto right from the beginning. Out of lot No. 119, Central Hotel Main Building and the land attached thereto, Smt. Shakuntla Kochhar sold an area of 1016 sq. yards and 3 sq. feet comprising of building known as Central Hotel Annexe bearing Khasra No. 61/2 and land appurtenant thereto comprised in Khasra No. 490/62/A, measuring 864 sq. yards and 2 sq. feet vide sale deed dated 06.10.1967 for a consideration of Rs.27,000/- to the plaintiffs. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the plaintiffs were put in possession of the property, which was so purchased by them from Shakuntla Kochhar. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 1 started development work on the property so purchased and constructed partly a single storeyed and partly a double storeyed building known as Him Prastha Bhawan, consisting of a basement and one storey above it on the portion of vacant land purchased from Shakuntla Kochhar. Out of the aforesaid newly constructed building, plaintiff No. 1 sold portions thereof to plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 as mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were also put in legal possession of their respec