- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby an injunction had been granted regarding 12 kanals 10 marlas out of total land measuring 46 kanals 9 marlas. The appeal filed by the present appellants before the Lower Appellate Court was dismissed on 5.8.2005. On 28.10.2005, this Court passed the following orders:- As per record possession was handed over to the respondents under orders of the S.D.M., in proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Counsel states that Crl. Misc. application, filed by the petitioners, against that order, is pending admitted, in this Court. It is apparent from records that both the courts below while decreeing suit of the respondent have relied upon order passed by the S.D.M. vide which possession was delivered to the respondents. That order is under challenge, this Court feels that decision of Criminal Misc. bearing No.11002-M of 2000 shall have a bearing so far as merits of this appeal are concerned. This Court feels that no interim injunction can be granted in favour of the appellants, at this stage. In the interest of justice, appeal is adjourned sine die and be put up for hearing as and when criminal miscellaneous, referred to above, is decided.
(2.) Thereafter, Criminal Misc. No.53172 of 2005 was disposed on 29.11.2005 and it was observed as under:- On 14.9.2005, following order was passed:- This petition has been pending for the last five years and it is pointed out that there is no stay granted, By lapse of time, the petition may have become infructuous. None appears for the petitioners. Dismissed for non-prosecution. After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioners, no ground is made out for recall of the said order. It is, however, made clear that this order will not affect civil suit, which is staid to be pending between the parties. Dismissed.
(3.) In pursuance of the order dated 28.10.2005, this case was listed on 26.8.2011 wherein counsel for the appellant sought time to have instructions from the appellants whether to pursue this appeal or not. Counsel was not present on two dates of hearing i.e. on 12.9.2011 and 14.10.2011. On 30.11.2011 again request was made on behalf of counsel for the appellants and on 11.1.2012 Mr. A.P.Bhandari, counsel for the appellants requested for adjournment to verify whether the dispute still exists between the parties and the case was ordered to be adjourned to 1.2.2012. On 1.2.2012 none appeared on behalf of the counsel for the appellants. Today also case has been called twice but none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. From the sequence of events it would be clear that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for non prosecution.;