Satya Poot Mehrotra, J. - (1.) PERUSED the office report dated 16.3.2007/22.3.2007/11.4.2007 in regard to service of notices issued consequent to the death of Shri Swami Dayal, who was appearing as the learned Counsel for the defendants -appellants. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that the notice sent to the defendant -appellant No. 2 hats been returned back with the endorsement dated 8.11.2004 made by the post -man on the registered envelope, wherein the said notice was sent, that the defendant -appellant No. 2, namely, Mauzam Singh had already expired, and, therefore, the registered post was being returned to the sender.
(2.) NO substitution application appears to have been filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Mauzam Singh (defendant -appellant No. 2) for being substituted in place of the said Mauzam Singh (defendant -appellant No. 2). In the circumstances, the second appeal at the instance of the said Mauzam Singh (defendant -appellant No. 2) stands abated.
(3.) IT further appears that Mihi Lal (defendant -appellant No. 1) had expired on 13.9.1977, and, thereupon, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. ........... of 1982 (dated 15.7.1982) along with Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 2266 of 1982 (dated 15.7.1982) was filed for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the said Mihi Lal (defendant -appellant No. 1).;