Through this F.A.O., appellants have only challenged second part of the impugned order, dated 1-3- 2001 by which, after dismissal of plaintiff's application for restoration of the suit, plaint was also rejected upon application of respondents Nos.2 to 5. The appellants before this Court were defendants in the suit, but claimed to be aggrieved of the rejection of plaint.
2. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 has appeared at preadmission stage and conceded that the impugned order, dated 1-3-2001 was illegal to the extent of rejection of the plaint. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the said respondents that application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Was moved by respondents Nos.2 to 5 and the same be dismissed as withdrawn in view of non-restoration of the suit through impugned order. It is further stated that respondents other than respondents Nos.2 to 5 are not relevant to the controversy relating to rejection of plaint because application thereto was only filed by respondents Nos.2 to 5. As such, presence of other respondents is not essential.
' Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that respondents other than respondents Nos.2 to 5 are not relevant.
3. In view of the conceding statement of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and withdrawal of application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., the said application for rejection of plaint shall stand dismissed as withdrawn and the observations qua the rejection of plaint in the impugned order, dated 1-3-2001, shall stand deleted and modified. This first appeal is, therefore, accepted in above terms against rejection of plaint. Above observed modification in the impugned order, dated 1-3-2001 shall stand incorporated. Parties are left to bear their own costs.