- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. Pursuant to the order dated 11-10-2006, the case is listed today per-emptorily.
(2.) CASE has been taken-up in the revised list. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is not present. Shri V. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent is present. A perusal of the order-sheet since 16-12-2005 shows that on 16-12-2005, 24-5-2006, 5-7-2006, 31-8- 2006 and 14-9-2006, the case was adjourned on account of the illness slip sent by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. Further, on 10-5- 2006, 17-8-2006, 21-9-2006 and 11-10-2006, the case was adjourned on account of the absence of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, even when the case was taken-up in the revised list. As noted above, even though the case is listed per-emptorily today and has been taken-up in the revised list, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is not present.
(3.) IN the circumstances, the Court has no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for want of prosecution. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Appeal dismissed. .;