SHEO NATH Vs. MALLU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. Learned Counsel for the proposed defendants -appellant Nos. 1/1 to 1/5, as mentioned in Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 262 of 1992 (dated 13.14992) are not present. A perusal of the order -sheet shows that on 11.9.2006 also, the learned Court for the proposed defendants -appellant Nos. 1/1 to 1/5 were not present even when the case was taken -up in the revised list.

(2.) AGAIN on 18.9.2005, Shri A.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the proposed defendants -appellants No. 1/1 to 1/5 was not present even when the case was taken -up in the revised list.

(3.) THE aforementioned Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 262 of 1992 (dated 13.1.1992) is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.