- (1.) The above said Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 26th September, 1988 and following order passed :- "Admitted. The respondent may withdraw the decretal amount after furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the executing court."
(2.) The respondent could not be served in spite of repeated efforts. Notice was issued for 12.3.1993. It was reported that the Director of the respondent-Mill had died. Therefore, letter to the counsel was addressed thereby requesting him to furnish correct particulars and present address of the present Director of the respondent-Mill within two weeks, but the needful was not done. Therefore, the case came up for hearing on 6.8.1993, when on the request of learned counsel for the appellant four weeks' time was granted. Again needful having not been done, the case was listed for hearing and vide order dated 16th November, 1993 two weeks' time was again granted but the result remained the same. Then case was listed for January 18,1994. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant again two week's time was allowed. Then the office reported that neither the process fee nor fresh address had been furnished. Therefore, on 31.3.1994 following order was passed: "On the request of Mr. Hooda learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the last opportunity for doing the needful is afforded. Let needful be done within six weeks as prayed for. Put up for scrutiny on 19th May, 1994."
(3.) On 19th May, 1994, none appeared for the appellant and therefore, following order was passed: "Order dated 31.3.1994 has not been complied with. Dismissed for non-prosecution.";