PER CURIAM.
This case well illustrates the hazards of proceeding in the trial court when the rules of practice are not followed. To a zoning appeal returned the fourth Tuesday of November, 1970, the defendant Michael Barbieri on January 8, 1971, well beyond the time proscribed by § 76 of the Practice Book as amended, filed a plea in abatement. On March 11, 1971, the plaintiffs belatedly filed a motion to expunge the plea in abatement. The judgment discloses that when the matter was reached for hearing on the motion to expunge the court did not decide the merits of that motion but "found that the best interests of the Court and the parties would be served by determining the issue raised by the defendant Michael Balbieri's plea in abatement." Despite the fact that the issues on the plea in abatement had not been closed and no responsive pleading had been filed as provided by § 95 of the Practice Book, the court nevertheless found the issue for the defendant . . . and that said defendant's plea in abatement is sufficient." The judgment directed that the plaintiffs' writ he dismissed, and from this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed.