Procedural defect in a common appeal was curable, requiring hearing on merits after opportunity to correct the deficiency.

A common appeal against four orders in original could not be rejected solely because separate appeals were not filed for each order, where the filing was within time and the objection was only to clubbing. The defect was procedural and curable, so the appellant had to be given an opportunity to remove the technical deficiency before any decision on merits. The appellate order was therefore set aside, and the matter was directed to be heard de novo on merits after due opportunity to present the case.

---

---

Issues: Whether a common appeal filed against four orders in original could be rejected merely because separate appeals were not filed for each order, and whether the technical deficiency should be permitted to be cured before adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was filed within time and the objection related only to clubbing of the four orders in one appeal. The defect was procedural in nature and did not justify rejection of the appeal without giving an opportunity to remove the deficiency. The proper course was to permit correction of the technical defect and then hear the matter on merits after affording due opportunity to the applicants.

Conclusion: The order in appeal was set aside and the appeal was directed to be disposed of de novo on merits after removal of the technical deficiency and after giving the applicants a proper opportunity to represent their case.

---