- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. It appears that by the order dated 8th Oct. 2004 passed by the O. S. D. , notice was directed to be issued to the plaintiff-ap pellant (Mukhtiara Singh) to engage another Counsel as Sri H. S. Nigam, who had been appearing as the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, had expired.
(2.) IT further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 8th Oct. 2004, notice was issued by Registered Post to the plaintiff- appellant (Mukhtiara Singh) to engage another Counsel. The Office Report dated 25th November, 2005 shows that the said notice, issued to the plaintiff- appellant (Mukhtiara Singh) to engage another Counsel, has been returned back un-served with the remark by the Postman that the addressee (Mukhtiara Singh) has expired. The said endorsement by the Postman is dated 2-11- 2004, as is' evident from a perusal of the un delivered envelope wherein the said notice was sent. Having regard to the said Office Report, the Court passed an order dated 15-12-2005 directing the Office to submit report as to whether any Sub stitution Application had been filed. on behalf of the heirs and legal repre sentatives of the said Mukhtiara Singh (plaintiff-appellant ).
(3.) PURSUANT to the said order dated 15-12-2005, the Office has submitted its Report dated 4-1 -2006. A perusal of the said Office Report dated 4-1 -2006 shows that no Substitution Application has so far been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal rep resentatives of the said Mukhtiara Singh (plaintiff- appellant ).;