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 · 139 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—List has been revised.
Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant are not present.
Sri Sanjeev Kumar holding brief for Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is present.
A perusal of the orders dated 16-11-2005,16-12-2005,30-01-2006,06-03-2006,20-03-2006 and 03-04-2006 passed on the Order-Sheet show that the case has been repeatedly adjourned on account of the reasons mentioned in the respective orders passed on the said dates.
Pursuant to the order dated 3-4-2006, the case is listed today.
As noted above, even though the case has been taken up in the revised list today, still the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant are not present.
In view of the above, there is no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for want of prosecution.
The Second Appeal is accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.