prosecuting the matter further, he should have preferred necessary second appeal impugning the same. However, despite having knowledge about the pendency of the second appeal preferred by his brother, the second respondent, he had not chosen to evince any interest to prefer an independent appeal. Inasmuch as the second respondent had already preferred the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, in my considered opinion, if at all the petitioner has got any cause to urge in the matter, in support of his case, the same could be done by him even in the second appeal preferred by the second respondent, as admittedly, the petitioner is a party in the abovesaid second appeal. It is found that despite the pendency of the abovesaid second appeal preferred by the second respondent, from 2014 onwards for one reason or the other, the same could not be disposed of. Now, according to the respondents, only on account of the delay tactics adopted by the petitioner, the abovesaid second appeal could not be disposed of. Furthermore, the reason given by the petitioner that the second respondent is planning to withdraw the second appeal preferred by him in connivance with the first respondent with a view to jeopardise his interest has been vehemently repudiated by the respondents and according to them, the abovesaid reason is projected as a false cause for the delay and therefore, according to them, the reason projected for the delay deserves rejection. As regards the cause projected by the petitioner that the second respondent is endeavouring to withdraw the http://www.judis.nic.in
