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
6 paragraphs · 129 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—Pursuant to the order dated 11.7.2006, the case is listed today.
Case called out in the revised list.
Learned Counsel for the parties are not present.
A perusal of the orders, dated 29.11.2005. 20.1.2006. 27.1.2006, 21.2.2006, 27.2.2006. 6.3.2006, 20.3.2006 and 11.7.2006 passed on the order-sheet, shows that the case is being repeatedly adjourned either on the illness-slips sent by the learned Counsel for the parties or on account of the learned Counsel for the parties not appearing before the Court even when the case has been taken up in the revised list.
In view of the above, the Court has no option but to dismiss the second appeal for want of prosecution.
The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.