ORDER : This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Saundatti, in R.A. No.26/2015, dated 18.03.2016. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Judge at Saundatti, in O.S. No.213/2010 dated 05.08.2015. 2. The appellants – defendants have filed this appeal. The respondent – plaintiff had filed the suit to pass a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants. The suit was contested by filing written statement. 4 issues were raised. After the trial and hearing of arguments, the suit was dismissed with costs. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed R.A. No.26/2015, on 05.10.2015. There was delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. Seeking condonation, I.A. 1/2015 was filed, under S.5 of the Limitation Act. Arguments on I.A.1/2015 was heard and posted for orders. The Judgment and an Order dated 18.03.2016 was passed. 4. The substantial question for consideration is, whether the lower Appellate Court acted illegally in allowing the appeal and in decreeing the suit, without hearing arguments on the merit of the appeal? 5. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the record. 6. O.S. No.213/2010 filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Trial Court on 05.08.2015. R.A. No.26/2015 was filed on 05.10.2015. To condone delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, I.A.1/2015 was filed. I.A.1/2015 having been contested, arguments on the same was heard on 18.02.2016. To furnish the citations, appeal was adjourned. Memo with citations was filed on 20.02.2016 and the case was posted for orders. By a Judgment dated 18.03.2016, the appeal was allowed and the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside. Consequent upon the same, by a separate order, the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal without assigning any reason or recording satisfaction for the cause shown, was condoned and O.S.No.213/2010 was decreed. 7. From the record of the case, it is clear that arguments on I.A.1/2015 having been heard, without consideration of the application and passing orders thereon, the main appeal was allowed, Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, impugned in the appeal, was set aside. As a consequence, by a separate order made in the order sheet, delay in filing the appeal was condoned. As a consequence, by a separate order made in the order sheet, delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The procedure adopted by the lower Appellate Court is strange. Unless the delay is condoned, Appellate Court does not get jurisdiction to decide the appeal on its merit. Herein, it is a case of ‘horse behind the cart’. The appeal was allowed first and as a consequence, the delay was condoned. 8. Concededly, the lower Appellate Court did not grant any opportunity of hearing to either of the parties to address arguments on the main appeal. However it allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent – plaintiff and reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Since the lower Appellate Court without hearing either of the parties has reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the impugned Judgment and Decree herein being illegal, cannot be sustained. An opportunity ought to have been granted to the respondents in the appeal, to present their case. Since that has not been done, there is need for interference. In the result, appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Decree is set aside. R.A. No.26/2015 stands restored for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. All contentions of both parties are kept open. Both parties are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court, on 16.07.2016 and receive further orders. The case be decided on or before 28.10.2016.