JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This appeal has been taken up in the revised call. No-one is present on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. This appeal was never admitted nor any substantial question of law was framed and the order passed on 26.5.1988 is to the following effect: “Let the appeal be listed for admission in the ordinary course before appropriate Bench.” 3. On the same day an interim order was also transcribed on the stay application. 4. Again the appeal appears to have been listed for admission on 5.10.1988 vide order dated 23.9.1988, which is quoted herein below: “List for admission on 5.10.1988.” 5. The aforesaid orders clearly indicate that the learned counsel, who had filed the appeal, did not pursue it at all nor was it argued and was simply lying in the registry. The same was dismissed in default on 1.8.2000 and was restored on 24.2.2006, which order is separately transcribed and pasted on the order-sheet. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants was heard and there being no substantial question of law arising, the appeal was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 on 24.2.2006 by a separate judgment that is reproduced herein below: “izfroknh foi{kh us ,d okn izfroknh ds fo:) nkf[ky fd;k fd vihykUV mld fdjk;snkj gSA izfroknh vihydrkZ dk dFk gS fd os fookfnr Hkwfe ds ekfyd gSs vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe ls foi{kh dk dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugha gSSA ijh{k.k U;k;ky; us vkKk fnukad 21&5&87 }kjk oknh&foi{kh dk nkok fMdzh dj fn;kA bl vkKk ds fo:) oknh&foi{kh us vihy izLrqr dh tks fnukad 20-04-1988 dks [kkfjt dj nh x;h ftlds fo:) vihydrkZ us ;g f}rh; vihy bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gSA eSusa vihydrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lqukA nksuksa vihydrkZ U;k;ky;ksa us viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd oknkh fookfnr Hkwfe ds ekfyd gSa rFkk vihydrkZ fdjk;snkj gSA ;g rF; ij fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ gS] blesa dksbZ xyrh ugha gSA vihy cyghu gS vkSj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA” 7. It appears that appellant approached the Apex Court and filed Civil Appeal No. 304 of 2009. The appellant appears to have suppressed the fact that the appeal was never admitted. It appears that appellant approached the Apex Court and filed Civil Appeal No. 304 of 2009. The appellant appears to have suppressed the fact that the appeal was never admitted. The Apex Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that no substantial question of law appears to have been framed while admitting the regular appeal in 1988 and, therefore, the judgment delivered on 24.2.2006 is not in conformity with Section 100 CPC. 8. The Apex Court, therefore, set aside the judgment dated 24.2.2006 and called upon this Court to decide the matter expeditiously within 6 months. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 25.5.2012 is extracted hereunder: “Inspite of service, no-one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Regular Second Appeal No. 1304 of 1988. The High Court has decided the regular Second Appeal in 2006 though admitted in 1988 without making any reference to any pleadings or evidence led by the parties by just affirming the judgment of the Court below. No reference has been made as to whether while admitting the regular second appeal in 1988, any substantial question of law was framed. The High Court disposed of the second appeal in a most cryptic manner. Such a kind of judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration after giving opportunities of hearing to the parties. The matter may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court who shall place it before an appropriate Bench and the Court is requested to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.” 9. The matter was listed before this Court on 5.12.2012 when the learned counsel for the appellants was called upon to explain as to why the fact of the appeal not having been admitted, was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court. The order passed by this Court is extracted hereunder : “This appeal does not appear to have been admitted. The order passed by this Court is extracted hereunder : “This appeal does not appear to have been admitted. It was directed to be listed for admission in ordinary course before the appropriate bench vide order dated 26.5.1988 followed by another order to the same effect passed on 23.9.88. While, passing the said order an interim order was also passed on the said application on 26.5.1988. The appeal was thereafter dismissed in default and on a restoration filed the matter was taken up and was ultimately dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 by the judgment of this Court dated 24.2.2006. Assailing the said order the appellant appears to have rushed up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has passed a judgment setting aside the judgment of the High Court on 25.5.2012 observing that no reference has been made by the High Court as to whether any substantial question of law was framed while admitting the regular second appeal in 1988. As noted above it appears that the fact that the appeal was never admitted was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Supreme Court proceeded on the premise as if the High Court has committed an error by not framing a substantial question of law inspite of the appeal having been admitted. Nonetheless the judgment of the High Court has been set aside and now the matter has been placed before this Court for deciding this appeal within six months. The period of six months is almost over. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to assist the Court in this appeal. He states that since the client has been called upon to handover the brief after the order of remand which is likely to take some time in order to complete instructions the same maybe taken up in January, 2013. The prayer is accepted. List in the second week of Jan., 2013. “ 10. Today, when the matter has been taken up, the name of all the counsel appears to have been shown in the cause list. The matter has been taken up at about 11.05 A.M. in the revised call and no-one is present to press this Appeal. 11. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed in default with cost of Rs. “ 10. Today, when the matter has been taken up, the name of all the counsel appears to have been shown in the cause list. The matter has been taken up at about 11.05 A.M. in the revised call and no-one is present to press this Appeal. 11. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed in default with cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants to be paid by him for having suppressed material facts before the Supreme Court. ——————