JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Second Appeal was filed by Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) through Sri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate (as he then was). 2. It appears that in view of the elevation of Sri Rajesh Tandon to the Bench of the Uttranchal High Court, the Registrar (Confidential) by his order dated 25.8.2005, directed that notice be issued to the plaintiff-appellant by Registered Post A.D. to engage another counsel. 3. It further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 25.8.2005, notice was issued to the plaintiff-appellant by Registered Post A.D. 4. The Office submitted its Report dated 15.5.2006, inter alia, stating that neither Undelivered Cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card in respect of the Registered Post, wherein the said notice had been sent to the plaintiff-appellant, was received back. 5. The said Report was reiterated by the Office in its Report dated 23.5.2006. 6. It further appears that Civil Misc. (Abatement) Application No. 67701 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent No. 1. 7. It is, inter alia, stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid Abatement Application that the sole plaintiff-appellant (namely, the said Smt. Kishori Devi) had died on 18.10.2000, but till date no application has been filed by the heir and legal representative of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) for being brought on record. 8. In view of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid Abatement Application, the Court by its order dated 16.5.2006, directed the Office to submit its Report as to whether any Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant). 9. Pursuant to the said order dated 16.5.2006, the Office has submitted its Report dated 23.5.2006. 10. A perusal of the said Report dated 23.5.2006 shows that no Substitution Application has so far been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Smt. Kishore Devi (plaintiff-appellant). 11. 10. A perusal of the said Report dated 23.5.2006 shows that no Substitution Application has so far been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Smt. Kishore Devi (plaintiff-appellant). 11. It is true that notice to engage another counsel pursuant to the said order dated 25.8.2005 passed by the Registrar (Confidential) was sent addressed to the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant), who, as per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Abatement Application, had already expired on 18.10.2000. 12. However, in view of the fact that the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) have not come forward for filing Substitution Application, and further, as the details in regard to the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) have not been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court has no option, but to hold the service of notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 25.8.2005 as sufficient. 13. The service of notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 25.8.2005 is accordingly held to be sufficient. 14. As noted above, as per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Abatement Application, as also in view of the Office Report dated 23.5.2006, it is evident that no Substitution Application has been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant). 15. Therefore, the Second Appeal at the instance of the said Smt. Kishori Devi (plaintiff-appellant) stands abated. 16. The said Smt. Kishori Devi was the sole plaintiff-appellant. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed as having abated. ———