- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. By the order dated 2. 1. 2006, notice was directed to be issued to the plaintiff-appellant to engage another counsel, as Shri Haji Iqbal Ahmad, who had been appearing as the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, was reported to have expired.
(2.) IT further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 2. 1. 2006, notice was issued to the plaintiff- appellant fixing 23. 3. 2006. The Office submitted its Report dated 22. 3. 2006, interalia, stating that the notice issued to the plaintiff-appellant pursuant to the said order dated 2. 1. 2006 had been received back with the endorsement dated 24. 1. 2006 that the addressee, Bhoora (plaintiff-appellant), had expired. In view of the said Office Report dated 22. 3. 2006, the Court by its order dated 23. 3. 2006, interalia, directed the Office to submit Report as to whether any Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Bhoora (plaintiff-appellant) for being substituted in place of the said Bhoora (plaintiff-appellant ). Pursuant to the said order dated 23. 3. 2006, the Office submitted its Report dated 29. 3. 2006 to the effect that no Substitution Application had been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Bhoora (plaintiff-appellant ).
(3.) BY the order dated 30. 3. 2006, the Court directed the case to be listed on 9. 5. 2006 (i. e. , today) with fresh Office Report, as required by the said order dated 23. 3. 2006. Pursuant to the order dated 30. 3. 2006, the case is listed today. The Office has submitted its Report dated 8. 5. 2006 reiterating that no Substitution Application has been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Bhoora (plaintiff-appellant ).;