Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) This first appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh, in Civil Suit No. 58/1985 "Gurjant Singh & Anr. v. Sardar Singh (dead) by LRs Sadhu Singh & Ors. " whereby, the suit seeking specific performance of the contract filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.
(2.) Nobody has appeared for either of the parties. Perused the record of the case. Though the names of Mr. Guru Prakash and Mr. Sudesh Gupta appears, as the counsel for the appellants and the name of Mr. I.J. Lodha appears, as the counsel for the respondents in the cause list. The case is listed at Sl. No. 5 of the cause list. None appears to have appeared for either of the sides in the present matter since long as per the record. It appears that only at the time of admission of this first appeal on 10.01.1990, Mr. Guru Prakash had appeared for the appellants, who unfortunately expired long back. His son Mr. Sudesh Gupta is also not present in the present matter since long. The learned counsel Mr. I.J. Lodha, counsel for the respondents, has also expired long back. The order-sheets of the Court drawn in this matter shows that since 1991 to till date, nobody had appeared for either of the sides.
(3.) The present first appeal has been filed by one of the legal representatives of the original defendant Sardar Singh namely, Sadhu Singh against the decree of specific performance of contract dated 29.09.1989 given in the Civil Suit No. 58/1985 by the learned Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Haumnangarh Camp Suratgarh in the case between Gurjant Singh and Nihal Singh sons of Nazar Singh v. Sardar Singh (dead) represented by his Legal Representatives Sadhu Singh & Ors. on the basis of the agreement to sale dated 13.06.1977 by which, the land admeasuring 12 bighas was agreed to be sold by the defendants and a decree of specific performance of the contract was given by the learned Trial Court in the following terms:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 4. Having examined the record, it is noticed that at the time of admission on 19.01.1990, no interim order was passed in favour of the defendant-appellant and, therefore, prima facie, in such circumstances of the case and without any interim order from this Court, the decree dated 29.09.1989 granted by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents might have been executed. 5. The parties have not appeared before the Court nor they appear to have made any alternative arrangement for prosecution of this first appeal. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it is considered expedient that this old first appeal of the year 1990 deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution or default in appearance. 6. Accordingly and in view of the above, this first appeal stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith. Appeal dismissed;