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 · 280 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—List has been revised.
Learned Counsel for the applicants in Civil Misc. Application No. 96111 of 2002 and Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 96112 of 2002 is not present.
Pursuant to the order dated 1122005, the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court on account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Applications in taking requisite steps for issuance of notice, pursuant to the order dated 1122005 passed on the aforementioned Applications.
Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Applications.
Further, none is present on behalf of the applicants even though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
In the circumstances, the Court has no option but to dismiss the aforementioned Applications for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
The aforementioned Applications, namely, Civil Misc. Application No. 96111 of 2002 and Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 96112 of 2002 are, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
It may be noted that the aforementioned Applications have been filed consequent to the death of Sarju Prasad (defendant respondent).
In view of the dismissal of the aforementioned Applications, the Appeal as against the said Sarju Prasad (defendant respondent) stands abated.
The said Sarju Prasad was the sole defendantrespondent. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed, as having abated.