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
7 paragraphs · 185 wordsS.P. Mehrotra, J.—Case called out in the revised list.
Learned Counsel for the defendantappellant is not present.
A perusal of the Office Report dated 14th February, 2006 read with the Office Report dated 21st February, 2006 shows that the envelop, wherein notice was sent to the plaintiffrespondent No. 1 (Smt. Amjadi Begum) by Registered Post A.D. to engage another Counsel, has been received back unserved with the endorsement by the Postman that the addressee (Smt. Amjadi Begumplaintiff respondent No. 1) had expired.
No Substitution Application appears to have been filed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiffrespondent No. 1.
In the circumstances, the Second Appeal, as against the plaintiffrespondent No. 1, stands abated.
The said Smt. Amjadi Begum (respondent No. 1 in the Second Appeal) was the sole plaintiff in the Suit giving rise to the present Second Appeal, while the other respondents in the Second Appeal as well as the appellant in the Second Appeal, were the defendants in the said Suit.
In the circumstances, the Second Appeal stands dismissed as having abated.