- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the eviction decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar in Civil Suit No.23/1983 - Mst. Savitri widow of Mool Chand, by caste Maheshwari and others vs. Tilokchand, Ramswaroop and Ram Kumar all sons of Shiv Prasad in respect of the suit shop � 15 x 8 ft situated at Bikaneria Bazar, Nohar, inter alia on the grounds of bonafide necessity, default and the default in payment of rent. The decree is dated 12.11.1990.
(2.) IN the present first appeal filed by the defendant � tenants on 19.12.1990, Shri Sampat Raj Bhandari, Advocate had appeared initially when the appeal was admitted on 03.01.1991. By the order dated 03.01.1991, it was directed that the appellant-defendants shall not be dispossessed from the suit property in execution of the decree under appeal till March 31, 1991. The said interim order was confirmed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the presence of Shri Sampat Raj Bhandari, counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhagwat Prasad, counsel for the respondents on 05.12.1991. Shri S.R. Bhandari, advocate unfortunately expired about five years back and, thereafter, his junior colleague Mr. Gopal Acharya, Advocate pleaded no instructions on behalf of the appellants before this Court on 12.12.2005 and accordingly, fresh Court notices were sent to the appellant � defendants. The appellant No.2 Ram Kumar was served with Court notices on 21.04.2006 and other defendant Tilokchand was also served on the same date. However, the appellant � defendant No.3 Ram Kumar was not served, but since he was also resident of the same address, the service upon the appellant-defendant No.3 � Ram Kumar was also treated to be as complete vide office report dated 02.12.2006. Thereafter, no body has appeared on behalf of the appellant � defendants so far, though counsel for the respondent � plaintiffs, Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Mr. Harish Purohit and Mr. G.R. Bhari have filed power on 12.01.2005 after elevation of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad (as his Lordship then was and since then has even laid down the Office). Since this is a very old matter of 1990 and 22 years have passed by and the fresh Court notices were sent to the appellant � defendants and despite service, no body has put in appearance for and on behalf of the appellants, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in default. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned at the given addresses and both the learned courts below forthwith. ;