At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised preliminary objection that since appellant's review petition was dismissed, through the impugned judgment, therefore, the present appeal is incompetent. Learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfactorily refute the said contention.
2. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Additional District Judge, through passing the impugned composite judgment has decided the following matters:-
(i) Review petition and an application for amendment of the review petition, both filed by the appellant/defendant No.1, were dismissed.
(ii) Petition for leave to defend and two misc. Applications, filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for amendment of leave to defend and application for amendment were disposed of being infructuous.
(iii) Respondent No. 1/plaintiffs suit for recovery was decreed against the appellant on account of non-fulfilment of the condition, subject to which he was granted leave to defend the suit
(iv) Plaint to the exfent of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was rejected.
3. It is evident from the above, that besides deciding other matters, the learned Trial Court passed the decree for recovery against the appellant. The decree sheet was also drawn, which, inter alia, states that the suit of the plaintiff "is hereby stands decreed in favour of plaintiff against defendant No. 1's suit was decreed against the appellant, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.3.2003, against which the appellant has filed the appeal in hand. Appeal against the said judgment and decree lies to this Court.
4. In view whereof, it is held that the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2003, is competent and maintainable. The objection of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in this regard in hereby repelled.
5. Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing on 18.4.2005.