1. This appeal has been preferred against Judgement dated 15.01.2014 and Decree signed on 24.01.2014 and corrected on 26.07.2014, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2005, passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi-XIII, whereby and whereunder Judgment dated 30.11.2009, passed by Additional Munsif-III, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 96/1985, has been affirmed dismissing the appeal on merits in absence of appellants or their counsels. The appellants have assailed impugned Judgment challenging the correctness of the order passed by the lower court as well as the first appellate court.

2. The order passed by the learned Trial Court was on remand from the Court of 10th A.J.C. - cum - 3rd Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam Cases) by virtue of Judgment dated 24.07.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2005. The appellate court remanded this case U/O XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. for giving findings on the point of title of the parties. The issues were also formulated by the Appellate Court for determination of the case:

(I) Whether the plaintiffs have got better title than that of the defendants or the defendants have perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties by virtue of adverse possession?

(II) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

3. This Court at the time of ‘Admission, found that appeal itself is hopelessly barred by limitation of 1119 days. Before entering into merits of the case, it is proper to decide limitation petition first and as such I.A. No. 2124 of 2018 is taken on board.

4. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant had sufficient cause to file this appeal and the same has been mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Limitation Petition. It has been further submitted that appellants had to go outside for earning their livelihood and at the relevant point of time, they were residing at Odisha and as the plaintiffs have taken no step for paying advoleram court fee and also for taking any step for summons on the defendants (appellants herein), the appellants were under impression that they will be served summons after the plaintiffs complies with the necessary requirement. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, the appellants have never served with the summons and court below has proceeded ex-parte against them only on the basis that the plaintiffs have published the notice in the newspaper and returned his finding on the issues framed by the appellate court. In absence of appellants any order passed is nullity in the eyes of law and as such the appellants have good ground for condoning the delay. Learned counsel submits that appellants came to know about the orders only at the time of filing of Execution Case.

5. On the other hand Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have filed reply to I.A. No. 2124 of 2018 and vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the entire ground of no notice is fully concocted and without any basis and the same is fit to be struck down. The falsity of claim of the appellant that they were not aware regarding proceedings of Title Appeal No. 12/2005 would be evident from bare perusal of the order sheet of said Title Appeal No. 12/2005. Hazari was duly filed on behalf of the appellant on 14.03.2012 and counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned lower appellate court sought adjournment and as such appellants were very much aware regarding the proceedings of said Title Appeal No. 12 of 2005. Learned counsel submits that order passed by the appellate court is fully justified which also finds strength from the order sheet which has been brought on record. The first appellate court was also of the view that in the suit, the defendants/appellants did not chose to appear after remand of the case despite substituted service, which shows their conduct that they had participated