AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 402 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—The case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court. Case has been takenup in the revised list. None is present for either of the parties.
Aperusal of the reoprd showsthatCivil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 1170 of 1983 (dated 24.3.1983) and Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No......of 1983 (dated 24.3.1983) were filed on behalfof Hira Lal, interalia, praying for being substituted in place of Beni Madhav (plaintiffappellant), who was stated tohaveexpiredon27.2.1979.
The aforementioned Applications were dismissed by the Court by its order dated 4.11.1988 as against the defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 and 2 on account of failure of the plaintiffappellant in taking reguisite steps for service of notice on the said defendantsrespondents.
It further appears that another Substitution Application being Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1704 of 1979 (dated 2.7.1979) was filed on behalfof one Om Prakash, interalia, praying for being substituted in place of the said Beni Madhav (plaintiffappellant).
By the order dated 29.2.1980, the Court directed for issuance of notice on the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 1704 of 1979 (dated 2.7.1979).
On account of failure on the part of the applicant in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 1704 of 1979 (dated 2.7.1979) in taking requisite steps, the case is listed today under Ghapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court with the Office Reportdated 19.6.2007/4.7.2007.
Further, on account of failure to take steps for issuance of notices to the defendantsrespondents in respect of the Second Appeal, the matter is iisted today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken. In thecircumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal as well as the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 1704 of 1979 (dated 2.7.1979) for want of prosecution asagainst the defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal as well as the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 1704 of 1979 (dated 2.7.1979) is dismissed for want of prosecution as ''against the defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the only respondents in the Second Appeal, therefore, the Second Appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.