Satya Poot Mehrotra, J. - (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. In view of the above, there is no option but to dismiss the aforementioned Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 262 of 1992 (dated 13.1.1992) for want of prosecution.
(3.) THE aforementioned Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 262 of 1992 (dated 13.1.1992) is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.;