AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rohit Arya, J.—On 5.7.2006 this Court had ordered requisitioning the record of the Courts below for consideration of appeal on admission and in the meantime, on IA No. 10760/06 ordered for issuance of notice and in the meanwhile directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit land. On 18.8.2006 non appeared for the appellant and the Court observed that even nobody appeared on previous date i.e. on 31/7/2006, and process fee was not paid in time. Considering the totality of the case, Court had dismissed the second appeal for want of prosecution.
The Court on 20th September, 2006 accepting the reasons mentioned in the application (MCC No. 664/06) for restoration of Second Appeal No. 567/2006, allowed and the same was restored to its original number. Thereafter matter was again in default and counsel for the appellant had taken more than one opportunities to make good the default.
On 2.9.2013, counsel for the appellant, sought a week''s time to argue on admission. While granting time, this Court had made it clear that if the matter is not argued on admission, the Court shall consider vacating order of status quo granted earlier and ordered for listing of the matter in the 3rd week of September, 2013.
On 23/10/2013 again prayer was made by the counsel Shri Ravi Choudhary, Advocate seeking time to address this Court on admission. Respondents'' counsel seriously opposed the prayer for the reason that Ex-parte interim stay continuing for the last seven years. Appellant is avoiding to address this Court on admission against concurrent findings of fact. Therefore, matter was posted that no further indulgence be given by this Court by adjourning the matter. However, this Court, keeping in mind interest of justice, again afforded one opportunity to the appellant to address the appeal on admission and posted the matter on 25th October, 2013.
But, today nobody appeared in this appeal in the first round when the matter was called out and again no body appeared in the second round.
In view the facts narrated above, this Court finds that appellant is not interested to prosecute this appeal. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.