JUDGMENT

The matter is languishing to see its fate since 2002. Earlier, Advocate Shri R.D. Hoondikar and Shri Himanshu Rai filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1, but did not appear on behalf of respondent No.1. Moreso, notices were also issued and served on the legal heirs of respondents No.4, 5 and 6. Notably, this Court on 28.01.2024 had made it clear that the appeal would be heard on the next date because the contesting respondent was represented through counsel. Again, on 28.03.2025, the matter was fixed for hearing in motion stage for 02.04.2025 under caption ‘top of the list’ and such order was passed only because the counsel for the contesting respondent did not appear when the cases of final-hearing were taken-up and therefore this appeal was listed in motion stage for bringing this old matter to its logical end. Unfortunately, Shri Hoondikar breathed his last but still Shri Himanshu Rai, Advocate should have appeared but he did not. Therefore, this appeal was heard on 02.04.2025. Albeit, Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate appeared for respondent No.12, but he supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

2. By the instant appeal filed under Section 96 of the C