BASANTA AND ORS Vs. DULI CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice has not been issued in this appeal so far despite long lapse of time and an opportunity of effective hearing denied to this Court by seeking successive adjournments with gay abandon.

(2.) This appeal came up for hearing on 18th July, 2011 when a request for adjournment was made. Thereafter, the appellants have done little better than seeking adjournments after adjournments. No one has appeared today to cause appearance on behalf of the appellants. In similar circumstances, I had passed the following order in RSA No.197 of 2011 :-

(3.) I find no reason why I should depart from the view taken with respect to rights of respondents which have long settled by the unjustified inactivity of the appellants who have virtually abandoned the present appeal without sufficient reason or cause and may have lost their right to sue. It is one thing that an appeal is filed within limitation or with an application for condonation of delay in case the limitation for preferring a second appeal has expired, but it is another thing to keep an appeal in adjournment motion and animated suspension for an inordinately long time of say 4 to 5 years and then expect interference on merits. Principles of limitation law are based on the statute of repose where the right may remain but the remedy is taken away by effluxion of time. To that extent both the situations deserve, to my mind, the same treatment. The respondents may not even know that an appeal was filed in 2011 and has been lying dormant since then, with numerous listings caused by seeking adjournments time and again or that they may be surprised by summons issued by this Court. The status of execution proceedings, if any, taken out by the decree holder are also not known or the Court apprised of them.