AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that on 04.01.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 / plaintiffs submitted that the possession of the suit property has been handed over by the defendants / appellant and first respondent to the plaintiffs / respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the appellant / first defendant sought time to verify the same. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 11.01.2017 and on 11.01.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant / first defendant sought further time to verify the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 / plaintiffs and at his request, the matter was directed to be posted on 31.01.2017 and thereafter today i.e., 13.02.2017.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing at 10.45 a.m., there was no representation for the learned counsel for the appellant. However, it was passed over and at about 12.15 p.m., when the matter was taken up for hearing, again there was no representation for him. In such circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the second appeal for nonprosecution.
Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.