JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Court No.2, Auraiya, whereby he has dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 17 of C.P.C. of the plaintiffs/appellants

3. The facts, in brief, are that one Ram Swaroop Shukla had instituted an original suit no.17 of 2004 praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/appellants. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, Ram Swaroop Shukla had died and the plaintiffs/appellants have been substituted as his heirs.

4. As per the plaint case, one Ram Swaroop Shukla purchased a plot situated at Mohalla Hariganj, town and area Achhalda, Pargana Vidhuna, District Auraiya which has been described at the foot of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') from one Heera Lal S/o Bhikari Lal on 25.12.1948 for a sale consideration of Rs.300/- and he got possession over the suit property. Thereafter, he applied for the sanction of the map to the Nagar Panchayat Acchalda which was sanctioned by the Nagar Panchayat as per law.

5. Subsequently, the plaintiffs/appellants constructed a house for his residence and his name was recorded in Nagar Panchayat. The plaintiffs/appellants started depositing house tax and other taxes. Further case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that the defendant/respondent no.1 was his brother and required a house in Acchalda for residence. The plaintiffs/appellants permitted the defendant/respondent no.1 to stay in the suit property. It was the further case of the plaintiffs/appellants that the plaintiffs/appellants used to give money to his brother defendant/respondent no.1 to deposit taxes with the Nagar Panchayat, but his brother in collusion with the clerk of Nagar Panchayat got his name recorded in the Nagar Panchayat. When the plaintiffs/appellants came to know about the illegal act of defendant/respondent no.1, he submitted an application in Nagar Panchayat on 22.02.2000 for removal of the name of the defendant/respondent no.1 from the record and restore his name. As per the plaint case, the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession of the suit property and the defendants/respondents based on the forged sale deed were interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiffs/appellants which gave rise to the cause of action to the plaintiffs/appellants to institute suit.

6. The said suit was contested by the defendants/respondents denying the allegations of the plaint. The said suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed by the trial court vide judgement and order dated 01.10.2013.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred Civil Appeal before the District Judge, Auraiya which was registered as Civil Appeal No.19 of 2013.

8. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed in default by the appellate court vide order dated 24.11.2017. The plaintiffs/appellants filed an application on 12.12.2017 under Order 41 Rule 17 of C.P.C. (Santosh Kumar and Others Vs. Jagat Narayan) for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.19 of 2013 and re-admit the appeal and hear the appeal on merit.

9. The plaintiffs/appellants stated in the said application that Santosh Kumar was the Pairokar of the case. He met with an accident in July and suffered grievous injury in the accident due to which he underwent surgery. It was further stated that as his operation was not successful, therefore, he was again operated due to which he was unable to move, and for this reason, he could not attend the case. It was further stated that when he came to the civil court on 08.12.2017, he enquired about the status of the appeal and came to know that the appeal has been dismissed in default on 24.11