J.C. SHAH, J.
1. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts which give rise to this appeal; it is sufficient to say that a second appeal was preferred before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the appellant against a decree in suit for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from dispossessing the appellants from certain lands. It appears that when the appeal was placed for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11, CPC before the High Court on May 5, 1967, a representation was made to the court that the dispute in the appeal was likely to be compromised. On that representation, the following order was passed:
“Admitted to a hearing on May 5, 1967, on the ground that the matter will be settled by a compromise.”
Notice of the hearing of the appeal was issued and the parties negotiated certain terms of compromise which were placed before the Court. Thereafter there was some controversy and on July 14, 1967, it was agreed between the parties that the compromise should not be treated as binding and the appeal should be set down for hearing on July 20, 1967. The Court accordingly “set aside the compromise” and directed the appeal to be set down as requested. The appeal was then placed for hearing on May 3, 1968. The attention of the learned Judge was invited by the counsel for the respondents to the order admitting the appeal. The learned Judge in view of that order observed that he saw “no reason to proceed with the appeal inasmuch as no compromise had been effected”. He then directed that the appeal be dismissed. In our judgment the High Court had no power once the appeal was admitted to file to dismiss it without a hearing. The appeal was not disposed of for non-prosecution nor on the ground of abatement. The appellant was ready to argue the appeal on the merits. Even if it be granted that the Court would not have admitted the appeal but for the representation made to it that it was likely to be settled by compromise, once it was admitted the Court had no power to dispose of the appeal without a hearing on the merits. The appeal must be heard subject of course to the limitation of Section 100 CPC. Since the appeal was not heard on merits the order passed by the High Court on May 3, 1968 is set aside and it is directed that the case be remanded to the High Court for being disposed of according to law. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal.