2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would fairly submit that vide judgment dated 13.06.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.128A/2006 by the First Civil Judge, Class-II Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, which was filed by the appellants for declaration, partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction, the trial Court has decreed the Suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Against which late Brijlal Sahu and respondents No.1 and 2 preferred First Appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.21A/2007 before the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.08.2009, as the appeal is time barred. Against the same Brijlal and Mulchand preferred a Second Appeal viz SA No.422/2009, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2020, and the matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Court for deciding the Appeal on merits. Thereafter, the impugned judgment has been passed in the First Appeal, in which a specific ground was taken that the defendants remained ex-parte before the trial court, which is not proper. He would further submit that this Miscellaneous Appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the pending Civil Suit in an expeditious manner. Learned
