Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2394 (ALL)

RAM CHANDRA v. SIYA RAM

2006-09-20

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2006
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. Cause-list has been revised. 2. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is not present. 3. On account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the defen dant-appellant 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. It is further apparent from the Office Report dated 29. 4. 1987 that the notice issued to the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 had been received back un served with the remark "dead". 8. The Office Report dated 18. 9. 2006 shows that no steps have so far been taken on behalf of the defendant-appellant for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 (Siya Ram ). 9. Therefore, the Second Appeal stands abated as against the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (Siya Ram ). 10. 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 (plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein) and Naresh Chandra (Respondent No. 3 herein) against Ram Chandra (defendant-appellant herein) and Lala Ram (respondent No. 2 herein ). 11. The said suit wafe dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and or der dated 23. 12. 1974. 12. 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. 13. The said Naresh Chandra was impleaded as the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 in the said Civil Appeal, while the said Ram Chandra and Lala Ram were impleaded as the respondent Nos. 12. 1974. 12. 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. 13. The said Naresh Chandra was impleaded as the plaintiff-respondent 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. 14. 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. 15. Thereupon, the said Ram Chandra filed the present Second Appeal. 16. 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. 17. Further, the Second Appeal stands abated, as against the said Siya Flam (plaintiff-respondent No. 1) who was the other plaintiff in the said Original Suit No. 216 of 1969. 18. In the circumstances, the Second Appeal itself is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed .