JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. On account of failure on the part of the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant in taking requisite steps for issuance of notices on the Appeal, the Stay Application as well as the Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1759 of 1992 (dated 7.4.1992), the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
2. The case has been taken-up in the revised list. However, the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant is not present.
3. Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant.
4. In the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
5. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
6. The Stay Application, namely Civil Misc. Stay Application No. ..of 1983 (dated 28.2.1983) as well as the Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 1759 of 1992 (dated 7.4.1992) are also dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.