( 2026:HHC:14692 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.153 of 2018 Decided on: 22.04.2026 Rajinder Sharma & anr. … Appellants Versus Mohd. Latif (deceased) through LRs and anr. … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the appellants : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2017 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan (H.P), (hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.2/counter claimant was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs/present appellants was partly decreed and the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2014 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) was modified, whereby 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the counter claim as filed by defendant No.2/respondent was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla Devi filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering and occupying the land comprised in old/pre settlement Khasra No.1091/815/584/30 (old No.815/584/1) and the post settlement Khasra No.1905, 1096, 1097, 1098 and 1917 measuring 0-5 bighas situated in Mauza Paonta Sahib. 3. It was averred in the plaint that she is owner in possession of the suit land and she purchased the land measuring 0-5 bighas from Darshan Singh And Harbhajan Singh. The said purchase was duly incorporated in the revenue record vide mutation No.983. The revenue authorities made certain changes in the revenue record and on that account plaintiff filed correction application before the Settlement Officer. The defendants under the garb of the errors in the revenue records is interfering in the suit land and on 06.08.2007, they tried to stack the boulders with intention to block the ingress and egress of the plaintiff to her house from the national highway. Though the defendants were stopped by the plaintiff and her sons to refrain from doing illegal acts but they 3 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) threatened to occupy the suit land under the garb of wrong settlement record. The correction application filed by the plaintiff may take some time for final disposal and since the Settlement Officer is not empowered to restrain the defendants from interfering in the suit land, therefore suit was filed seeking decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 was arrayed as party defendant and both the defendants filed their separate written statements and all the averments and the contentions as raised in the plaint were refuted and denied. Defendant No.2 apart from filing the written statement, also filed a counter claim seeking relief of injunction, so as to restrain the non-counter claimant from interfering in the land of the counter claimant comprised in Khata Khatauni No.279/546 min, old field No.812/584/2 and new field No.1909 measuring 166-99 Sq.Mtrs. situated at Mohalla Paonta Sahib. It was averred in the counter claim that he is the owner in possession of the suit land, whereas the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest over the same. The non-counter claimant is claiming right of path from the suit land and she has recently installed a gate in their 4 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) property towards the land of the counter claimant. Non-counter claimants/plaintiffs are interfering in their land thereby preventing him from protecting his land by fencing or raising boundary wall. Therefore, relief of injunction was sought against the non-counter claimant/plaintiff. 5. The plaintiffs/non-counter claimants filed reply to the counter claim and denied all the allegations as made in the counter claim. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court on 22.10.2009 framed the following issues:- “1. Whether there is an error in construction of the Khasra No.1905 to 1908 and 1917 from old Khasra No.1091/815 during recent settlement, as alleged? ...OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? ...OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and as such has not approached the Court with clean hands, as alleged? ...OPD 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction? ... OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? ...OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by her own act and conduct? ...OPD 5 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 8. Whether the suit is hit by provisions of section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act? ...OPD 9. Whether the defendant No.2 is entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? ...OPD 10. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable? ...OPP 11. Whether the defendant No.2 is estopped from filing the counter claim by way of admission, as alleged? ...OPP 12. Whether the defendant No.2 has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present counter claim? ...OPP 13. Relief.” 6. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, whereas the counter claim filed by defendant No.2 was ordered to be dismissed. 7. By means of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court, defendant No.2 was restrained from interfering and occupying the suit land comprised in old/pre settlement Khasra No. 1091/815/584/30 (old No.815/584/1) and the post settlement Khasra Nos.1905, 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1917 measuring 0-5 bighas situated in Mauza Paonta Sahib till the final disposal of settlement proceedings before the settlement authorities. 6 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Trial Court dated 20.08.2014, defendant No. 2-Mohd. Latif filed a composite appeal against the decreeing of the Civil Suit bearing No.87/1 of 2007 and dismissal of the counter claim No.195/1 of 2014. 9. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 31/08/2017 partly allowed the appeal and the counter claim filed by defendant No.2/respondent No.1 was decreed. 10. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, the plaintiffs/appellants have approached this Court by filing the present Regular Second Appeal. This Court vide its order dated 23.05.2018 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on account of mis-appreciation of the pleadings and misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are erroneous and as such, the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse is vitiated and not legally sustainable?” 11 It is contented by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal, which was preferred by the present 7 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) respondents before the First Appellate Court was not maintainable in view of the law as laid down by this Court in case titled Ramesh Chand Vs Om Raj, reported in 2022(2) Shim. L.C. 1145. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment as passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said case and after hearing the respective parties, additional substantial question of law is framed in the following manner:- “Whether a single appeal was maintainable before the First Appellate Court against the judgment of decree passed by the learned Trial Court in decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter claim?” 12 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the records. 13. It is contended by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants that the single appeal filed by the respondents before the learned First Appellate Court against decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants and the dismissal of the counter claim filed by the defendants/respondents was not maintainable. He contended that the respondents were required to prefer two separate appeals, one challenging the decreeing of the suit and another challenging the dismissal of their counter claim. 8 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 14. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate has further submitted that since the defendants/respondents had preferred a single appeal arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the said appeal was not maintainable, in view of the settled mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate submits that since the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and dismissed the counter claim of defendants by a single consolidated decree, the only consequence of the same was that the respondents were entitled to file only a single appeal before the First Appellate Court. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submits that the single appeal preferred before the learned First Appellate Court was very much maintainable and on the other hand, Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate has submitted that the single appeal filed before the learned First Appellate Court was not maintainable. 17. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC, a defendant, in a suit, may, set up, the counter-claim 9 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) against the claim of the plaintiff regarding any right or claim, in respect of a cause of action, accruing to the defendant, against the plaintiff, either before or after the filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence, has expired. 18. 18. As per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC, such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court as the effect of the cross-suit and counter claim will be treated as the plaint, for which, the plaintiff has right to file written statement and when counter claim has been filed, the Court will pronounce the final judgment, not only in the suit filed by the plaintiff, but in the suit filed by the defendant, i.e. the counter claim. 19 The provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) to 6(G) of the CPC are very clear and are unambiguous and in view of the legal exposition of the law, it is no longer res-integra that the counter claim is the cross suit and dismissal of the counter claim is a decree and the same is appealable. 20 The scope and nature of the Counter Claim have elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jag 10 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) Mohan Chawla & Anr. Vs. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 699. Relevant Paragraph-5 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “5. The question, therefore is: whether in a suit for injunction, counter-claim for injunction in respect of the same or a different property is maintainable? Whether counter-claim can be made on different cause of action? it is true that preceding CPC Amendment Act, 1976, Rule 6 of Order 8 limited the remedy to set off or counterclaim laid in a written statement only in a money suit. By CPC Amendment Act, 1976, Rules 6A to 6G were brought on statute. Rule 6-A(1) provides that a defendant in a suit may,in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damage or not. A limitation put in entertaining the counter-claim is as provided in the proviso to sub-rule (1), namely, the counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Sub-rule (2) amplified that such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter- claim. The plaintiff shall be given liberty to file a written statement to answer the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. The counter- claim is directed to be treated, by operation of sub-rule (4) thereof, as a plaint governed by the rules of the pleadings of the plaint. Even before 1976 Act was brought on statute, this Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai case of suit and cross suit by way of counter-claim. Therein, suit was filed for enforcement of an agreement to the effect that partnership between the parties had been dissolved and the partners had arrived at a specific amount to be paid to the appellant in full satisfaction of the share of one of the partners in the partnership and thereby decree for settlement of accounts was sought. Therein the legal representatives of the deceased partner contended in the written statement, not only denying the settlement of accounts but also made a counter- claim in the written statement for the rendition of accounts 11 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) against the appellant and paid the court fee as plaint. They also sought a prayer to treat the counter- claim as a cross suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the counter-claim. On appeal, the learned Single Judge accepted the counter-claim on a plaint in a cross suit and remitted the suit for trial in accordance with law. On appeal, per majority, this Court had accepted the respondents' plea in the written statement to be a counter- claim for settlement of their claim and defence in written statement as a cross suit. The counter-claim could be treated as a cross suit and it could be decided in the same suit without relegating the parties to a fresh suit. It is true that in money suits, decree must be conformable to Order 20, Rule 18, CPC but the object of the amendments introduced by Rules 6A to 6G are conferment of a statutory right on the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the claim on the basis of which the plaintiff laid the suit, on his own cause of action. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words "any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. The defendant may set up a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit. The counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite court fee thereon. Instead of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert multiplicity of the proceeding and needles protection, the legislature intended to try both the suit and the counter- claim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. Acceptance of the contention of the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of 12 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) amendment. Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6- C to seek deletion of the counter-claim. It is seen that the trial Court had not found it necessary to delete the counter- claim. The High Court directed to examine the identity of the property. Even otherwise, it being an independent cause of action, though the identity of the property may be different, there arises no illegality warranting dismissal of counter- claim. Nonetheless, in the same suit, both the claim in the suit and the counter-claim could be tried and decided and disposed of in the same suit. In Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh where a Bench of two Judges of this Court was to consider the controversy, held that since the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before filing of the written statement, the counter-claim was maintainable. The question therein was of limitation with which we are not concerned in this case. Thus considered we find that there is no merit in the appeal.” 21. Similar view has again been reiterated by a three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyender & Ors. Vs. Saroj & Ors., reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 679. Relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “16. The other finding of Second Appellate Court regarding the counter claim of the defendants on Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 is, however, correct and is based on right interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 6A of CPC. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is clear that they had never raised any claim on Killa No. 6//18 or Killa No. 23. The defendants in their written statement while denying the rights of the plaintiffs on the land of which particulars had been given by the plaintiffs, quite ingeniously inserted the two Killa Nos.6//18 and 23, setting a counter- claim on these plots. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit had allowed this claim for without assigning any reasons. In fact, this counter claim which was raised by the defendant is barred under Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC. Order VIII, Rule 6A reads as under:- [6A. Counter-claim by defendant.—(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before 13 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints A counter claim can be set up only “against the claim of the plaintiffs”. Since there was no claim of the plaintiffs regarding Killa No. 6//8 and 23, the defendants were barred to raise any counter claim on these Killa numbers in view of Order VIII, Rule 6A of the CPC as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs. It is true that a counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action (Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors.). The Legislature permits the institution of a counter claim, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. But then it has certain limitations such as that the counter claim cannot exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and that such counter claim must be instituted before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired. More importantly, such a counter claim must be against the plaintiff! Evidently, in the present case the counter claim was not against the plaintiffs. Moreover, as the plaintiffs had not claimed any right over the property and the Killa Nos. 6//8 and 23 are not even a part of the suit property described in the plaint by the plaintiffs. Despite the same, such a claim has been allowed against the plaintiffs. In fact, we do not find on record any reply submitted by the plaintiffs against the counter claim. To be fair, such a counter claim should have been excluded in terms of Order VIII, Rule 6C of the CPC. Suffice it to state here that the counter claim set up by the defendants has been rightly rejected by the High Court.” 14 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 22. Perusal of the judgments reveals that a counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and governed by the same rules applicable to a plaint. It has been held that a counter claim can be set up only against the claim of the plaintiff; therefore, in substance, a counter claim is in the form of a plaint, and the dismissal of a counter claim is appealable. 23 Coming to the facts of the case, the learned Trial Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the counter claim preferred by defendant No.2. 24 In a natural corollary decreeing of the suit and dismissal of counter claim shows that there were two decrees, one, by virtue of the which, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and another, by virtue of which, the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed, in that eventuality, defendant No.2 was required to file two separate appeals. 25 Therefore, in such circumstances, the material question which arises for determination, before this Court, is whether the learned First Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and 15 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) decree, passed by the learned Trial Court in the absence of two separate appeals. 26 The said question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Ramesh Chand vs Om Raj, reported in 2022(2) Shim. L.C.1145, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has enumerated certain principles in this regard. Relevant Paragraph-42 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “42. The principles deducible from the afore discussed law can be summarized as follows: (i) When two suits are consolidated and tried together with common issues framed and common evidence led by the parties, resulting in a common judgment and decree, the same can be subjected to challenge by way of a single appeal at the instance of the aggrieved party; (ii) Where a single appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in two suits, which were consolidated and decided by a common judgment, decision of such single appeal, by a common judgment, reversing or modifying the claim in one suit out of the two, can be challenged by the aggrieved party also, in a single appeal. (iii) When two suits though not consolidated but are decided by a common judgment, resulting into preparation of two separate decrees, the aggrieved party would be required to challenge both of them by filing separate appeals; (iv) When both the suit and the counter claim are decreed by a common judgment, regardless of whether separate decree has been prepared in the counter claim, both would be required to be challenged by separate appeals; (v) In a case where two separate appeals are required to be filed against judgment of the suit and the counter claim and if appeal is filed only against one and not against the other, non 16 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) filing of appeal against such judgment and decree would attach finality thereto and would attract not only the principle of res- judicata but also waiver and estoppal and the judgment and decree not appealed against would be taken to have been acquiesced to by the party not filing appeal; (vi) When however, two appeals are filed against a common, judgment passed by the trial Court, both by the plaintiff and the defendant, and are disposed of by the first appellate Court by modifying/ reversing/affirming judgment of the trial Court, the aggrieved party, would be required to challenge both by two separate appeals, in absence of which, non- filing of appeal against one shall attract bar of the principles of res-judicata against another. (vii) Where more than one appeals are required to be filed or are filed and one or more of them are dismissed for default, delay or any other similar reason, any such situation would attract res-judicata and such dismissal would satisfy the requirement of appeal being heard and finally decided on merits ‘in a former suit’ for the purpose of attracting principles of res-judicata.” 27 Keeping in view, the exposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, on account of non-filing of the separate appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Trial Court, attracts the principles of res-judicata and the learned First Appellate Court could not have interfered with the findings of the learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 31.08.2017, by virtue of which, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, whereas, counter claim, set up by the defendants, was dismissed. 17 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 28 In such situation, the additional substantial question of law, framed, is accordingly decided, in affirmative, in favour of the appellants. 29 Although another substantial question of law has also been framed by this Court, but since the above-mentioned additional substantial question of law has been decided, in affirmative, in favour of the appellants, as such, another substantial question of law has became redundant. 30 The Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar situation in a case which has gone from this High Court in SLP(C) D No.59467/2024 titled as Charan Singh versus Ram Saroop, decided on 03.02.2025, while dealing and deciding the same issue, came to the conclusion that reliance was rightly placed by the First Appellate Court on precedents to hold that a composite appeal was not maintainable in law but, at the same time, the First Appellate Court ought to have borne in mind that Courts exist for rendering justice albeit in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the First Appellate Court found correctly that challenge to the common judgment of the Trial Court had been laid in a composite appeal but it is the requirement of law to file two appeals with 18 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) separate memorandum of appeal which had not been filed by the appellant, the Court ought to have at least alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. Further, it has been held in para-7 that in fact in terms of Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, the Appellate Court has the power to even dispense with the requirement of law of filing copy of the impugned judgment twice over if it is part of the memorandum of appeal already filed. It has been held that if even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the First Appellate Court would have been perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that it is not shown to them that any endeavor was made. 31 From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the Court is required to alert the appellant regarding the requirement of law and afford him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. Since the First Appellate Court in that case failed to do so, the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court with liberty to 19 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) the party to file a separate memorandum of appeal in accordance with law. 32 The Hon’ble Apex Court further directed that, in case the appellant files a separate memorandum of appeal, the same shall be registered without limitation and decided in accordance with law. 33 Taking into consideration the Legal Principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 02.09.2009, the matter is remitted back to the learned First Appellate Court with liberty to the defendants/respondents to file an independent appeal within a period of eight weeks from today. Once filed, the same shall be registered without limitation, being treated as a bar and both appeals shall thereafter be decided afresh on their own merits. 34 Consequently, the present appeal is liable to be allowed. After setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (H.P.), in Civil Appeal No. 124- N/13 of 20 ( 2026:HHC:14692 ) 2014, titled ‘Shri Mohd. Laitf Vs Kamli Devi (deceased) through LRs and another’, the parties are relegated to the Court of First Appeal. 35 It is directed that if the respondents prefer an independent, separate appeal within a period of eight weeks from today, both Civil Appeal No. 124-N/13 of 2014 and the new appeal shall be decided together expeditiously. It is made clear that if the respondents fail to do so within eight weeks from today, they shall lose the benefit of this order. The additional substantial question of law framed is answered accordingly. 36 Therefore, after allowing the present Regular Second Appeal, the appeal is remitted to the Court of the learned First Appellate Court by restoring it to its original number, to be decided alongside the other appeal, if any, filed by the respondents on or before 22.06.2026. Parties are directed to remain present before the First Appellate Court on 22.05.2026. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 22, 2026 (mamta)