- (1.) None appears for the appellant. Counsel as above appears for respondent No.2. The appeal was earlier dismissed in default. It was restored for hearing. It was expected that Counsel would appear for the appellant.
(2.) It appears that the appellant is interested in flogging a dead horse. Relevant facts are that respondent No.2 was appointed as a salesman by the appellant and a charge-sheet was issued to him on 27.11.1984 alleging that he had misappropriated goods worth Rs. 44,954.80 from the store of which he was the incharge.
(3.) At this stage while we were dictating the order Shri Prateek Kedawat, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. R.B.Mathur, Advocate and seeks adjournment which is declined.;