1
12 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.161/2007.
Abdul Kadir Vs. Aziza Bano & Ors.
Date of Order :: 5th December 2008.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
None present for the appellant.
Mr. S.G. Ojha, the respondents.
....
BY THE COURT:
Nobody is present for the appellant though the matter
has been called out twice over.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 21.02.2007 as passed by the District Judge,
Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 5/2002 whereby the suit filed
by the plaintiff Aziza Bano (since deceased and represented
by her legal representatives) was decreed as against the
appellant-defendant No.1 and the alleged Will dated
07.02.1992 was declared null and void as against the interests
of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2.
This first appeal was admitted for consideration by the
Registrar (Administration) on 13.04.2007. After completion of
service, when the matter was taken up on 07.05.2008, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that he had
moved an application for interim relief and, though nobody was
present for the appellant, the office was directed to list the
2
matter for orders on 16.05.2008. The matter was thereafter
taken up on 19.05.2008 while the office reported that no such
application was filed; however, nobody was present for either
of the parties and the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2008.
On 22.07.2008, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents again submitted that an application for interim
relief was moved after supplying a copy thereof to the learned
counsel for the appellant on 30.07.2007. Again, though
nobody was present for the appellant, but the matter was
ordered to be listed with complete report on 01.08.2008.
The office again reported that no such application had
been filed but then, nobody was present for either of the
parties on 01.08.2008 and, in the interest of justice, the matter
was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter, the matter was
taken up only on 06.11.2008 and again nobody was present
for the appellant but, as the learned counsel for the
respondents prayed for time to complete his instructions, the
matter was adjourned for four weeks and in this manner has
come up for consideration today.
It is noticed that in this appeal, consecutively on
07.05.2008, 19.05.2008, 22.07.2008, 01.08.2008, and
06.11.2008 nobody appeared for the appellant and today
again, nobody is present for the appellant though the matter
has been called out twice over.
3
Regular default in appearance on behalf of the appellant
only shows that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting
this appeal; and there does not appear any reason to keep this
appeal pending any further.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of
prosecution.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
s.soni