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
8 paragraphs · 164 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 14.5.2007, the case is listed today.
The office has submitted its report dated 21.5.2007 in compliance with the direction given in the said order dated 14.5.2007.
A perusal of the said office report shows that no learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the judgmentdebtorsappellants Nos. 2 and 3, pursuant to the service of notices on them having been held to be sufficient.
It is, further, evident from the said office report that no substitution application has been filed consequent to the death of the judgmentdebtorsappellant No. 1.
The case has been taken up in the revised list today.
None is present on behalf of the judgmentdebtorappellants Nos. 2 and 3, or the heirs and legal representatives of the judgmentdebtorappellant No.
In the circumstances, there is no option, but to dismiss the second appeal for want of prosecution.
The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.