JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of two orders passed in the same suit. APOT/68/2026 is directed against the order dated March 9, 2026 passed in IA No.GA/6/2025; whereas, APOT/69/2026 is directed against the order dated March 9, 2026 passed in IA No.GA/7/2025.

2. Appeals are at the behest of plaintiffs Nos. 1(a) to 1(d). There are four appellants. They are not represented by any Advocate.

3. Plaintiff no.1(d) appears in person. He claims that he possesses power of attorney to represent the other three plaintiffs/appellants.

4. We perused the memorandum of appeal in both the appeals. We find that, the memorandum of appeal in both of the appeals speaks of appeal being preferred by the plaintiff 1(d). Memoranda of appeal are, therefore, not by all the four appellants, but is limited to the appellant no.4 only.

5. Stay petition is affirmed by the plaintiff 1(d). He claims that he is the appellant No. 4 of the present appeals. He claims that affidavit of competency was filed earlier.

6. Again, from the affidavit verifying the stay petition it does not appear that the appeals are at the behest of the four appellants rather it is