P.N. Ravindran, J.
This appeal arises from the decree and judgment passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Kollam on 27.8.2000 in O.S.No.673 of 1995. The appellant is the plaintiff therein. By the impugned judgment, the suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of the sum of Rs.3,52,467/- with future interest and costs was dismissed.
2. This appeal was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents on 3.10.2001. The appellant was represented by Sri P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel who has since been elevated as a Judge of this court. When the appeal came up for consideration on 11.11.2016, Sri Leo George, learned counsel of this court who was an associate of the learned counsel for the appellant appeared and submitted that the appeal may be adjourned by two weeks. The appeal was accordingly adjourned by two weeks. The appeal thereafter came up for consideration on 16.12.2016. On that day, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, the parties were directed to be present in person on 5.1.2017 for referring them to mediation. When the appeal came up for consideration on 5.1.2017, Sri Leo George, learned counsel submitted that he has not been able AS 457/2001 2 to enter appearance for the appellant, after the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was elevated as a Judge of this court. He also submitted that though he had sent registered letters to the appellant as well as the power of attorney of the appellant, both the letters have been returned unserved. In the light of the said submission, this court directed the Registry to issue notice returnable in ten days to the appellant. Notice was accordingly issued from this court to the appellant on 6.1.2017 with the hearing date fixed as 16.1.2017. Registry has reported that the said notice has been returned "unclaimed".
3. When the appeal was taken up for consideration today, Sri Leo George, learned counsel submitted that he has not been able to contact the appellant and that he does not hold a vakalath for the appellant. The appellant is also not present in person. In such circumstances, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for default. We accordingly dismiss the appeal for default. Registry to communication a copy of this judgment to the appellant as also to the court below. If the records have been received from the court below, they shall be transmitted back.