JUDGMENT
S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. List has been revised. learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants are not present.
2. It appears that by the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the O.S.D., notice was directed to be issued to the plaintiff-respondent to engage another Counsel in view of the elevation of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent to the Bench of this Court.
3. It further appears that pursuant to the said order of the O.S.D. dated 1.11.2004, notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent on 4.11.2004 fixing 9.12.2004.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the envelope containing the said notice was received back unserved
with the endorsement dated 22.11.2004 that the addressee (i.e., the
plaintiff-respondent) had expired.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the Court by its order dated 5.12.2005 directed the Office to submit Report as to whether any Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent (namely, Behari Lal).
6. Pursuant to the said order dated 5.12.2005, the Office submitted its Report dated 9.12.2005 to the effect that no Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent (Behari Lal).
7. It further appears that by the order dated 17.2.2006, the Court again directed for issuance of notice to the plaintiff-respondent to engage another Counsel.
8. Notice was accordingly issued to the plaintiff-respondent fixing 21.3.2006.
9. The Office submitted its Report dated 20.3.2006 to the effect that the notice issued to the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to the said order dated 17.2.2006 had been returned back unserved with the remark “incomplete address”.
10. In view of the said Office Report dated 20.3.2006, the Court by its order dated 21.3.2006 directed for issuance of fresh notice to the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to the said order dated 17.2.2006, Notice was directed to be issued fixing 26.5.2006 at the address of the plaintiff-respondent (Behari Lal), as mentioned in the decree of the Lower Appellate Court.
11. It further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 21.3.2006, notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent at the address as mentioned in the decree of the Lower Appellate Court.
12. The Office submitted its Report dated 25.5.2006 to the effect that neither undelivered registered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card in respect of the said notice had been received back.
13. In view of the said Office Report, the Court by its order dated 7.7.2006 directed the Office to await service of notice, and list the case after four weeks with fresh Office Report.
14. Accordingly, the case is listed today with the Office Report dated 4.8.2006.
15. The said Office Report dated 4.8.2006 reiterates that neither undelivered registered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card in respect of the notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 21.3.2006 has been received back.
16. In the circumstances, service of notice on the plaintiff-respondent is deemed to be sufficient.
17. As noted above, none is present on behalf of the defendants-appellants, even though the case has been taken-up in the revised list. In the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for want of prosecution.
18. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.