Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The respondents were issued notices to engage another counsel vide Court’s order dated 7.11.2012, pursuant whereto notices sent to respondents 1 and 2 on 22.11.2012. Perused office report dated 13.2.2013. Service is deemed sufficient. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, hence I proceed to hear the appeal ex parte against respondents.

2. The following two substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court while admitting appeal:

A. about the interpretation of the sale-deeds which are the documents of title of the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant.

B. the lower appellate Court has not considered material evidence on record which was relied upon by the trial Court even though it was passing an order of reversal.

3. Besides above, during course of hearing, in my view, another substantial question of law has arisen, which is:

C. Whether lower Appellate Court has rendered its judgment consistent with Order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C.?”

4. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Hanuman Prasad instituted suit No.88 of 1973 for demolition of construction raised by defendants in plot No. 71/1, area 3 decimal, shown with letters ‘Ka’,