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
19 paragraphs · 524 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—Causelist has been revised.
Learned Counsel for the defendantappellant is not present.
On account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the defendantappellant to take requisite steps for issuance of notice to the Respondent No. 3 (Naresh Chandra), pursuant to the order dated 4.5.1987 passed by the Joint Registrar, the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, the requisite steps have not been taken.
In the circumstances, there is no option, but to dismiss the Second Appeal as against the Respondent No. 3 (Naresh Chandra) under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court for want of prosecution.
The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed as against the Respondent No. 3 (Naresh Chandra) under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court for want of prosecution.
It is further apparent from the Office Report dated 29.4.1987 that the notice issued to the plaintiffrespondent No. 1 had been received back un served with the remark "dead".
The Office Report dated 18.9.2006 shows that no steps have so far been taken on behalf of the defendantappellant for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiffrespondent No. 1 (Siya Ram).
Therefore, the Second Appeal stands abated as against the plaintiffrespondent No. 1 (Siya Ram).
It may be mentioned that from a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, it is evident that Original Suit No. 216 of 1969 was filed by Siya Ram (plaintiffrespondent No. 1 herein) and Naresh Chandra (Respondent No. 3 herein) against Ram Chandra (defendantappellant herein) and Lala Ram (respondent No. 2 herein).
The said suit wafe dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 23.12.1974.
Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 23.12.1974, Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1975 was filed by the said Siya Ram.
The said Naresh Chandra was impleaded as the plaintiffrespondent No. 3 in the said Civil Appeal, while the said Ram Chandra and Lala Ram were impleaded as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the said Civil Appeal.
By the judgment and order dated 24.3.1979 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the said Civil Appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs.
Thereupon, the said Ram Chandra filed the present Second Appeal.
From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the Second Appeal has been dismissed, as against the said Naresh Chandra, (Respondent No. 3) who was one of the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 216 of 1969.
Further, the Second Appeal stands abated, as against the said Siya Flam (plaintiffrespondent No. 1) who was the other plaintiff in the said Original Suit No. 216 of 1969.
In the circumstances, the Second Appeal itself is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed.