ORDER S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.1.2006, the case is listed today.
2. Learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants are not present. Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma holding brief for Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant in Civil Misc. Application No. 196968 of 2005, is present.
3. It appears that the aforementioned Civil Misc. Application No. 196968 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of Kishan Singh (applicant).
4. The application is accompanied by an affidavit, sworn by the said Kishan Singh (applicant) on 25.9.2005.
5. In paragraph No. 2 of the said affidavit, it is, inter alia; stated that Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent in the second appeal) died on 24.5.2005 in Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi leaving behind the said Kishan Chand as his sole heir and legal representative.
6. Photostat copy of the death certificate in respect of the death of the said Lakshmi Chand issued by Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, has been filed as Annexure-1 to the said affidavit.
7. By the said order dated 23.1.2006, the Office was directed to submit report as to whether any substitution application had been filed to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the said Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent).
8. Pursuant to the said order dated 23.1.2006, the Office has submitted its report dated 2.2.2006.
9. A perusal of the said Office Report shows that no Substitution Application has as yet been filed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the said Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent).
10. It may be mentioned that the said Lakshmi Chand was the sole plaintiff-respondent in the second appeal.
11. In view of the above, it is apparent that the said Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent) expired on 24.5.2005.
12. No substitution application has been filed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the said Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent).
13. In the circumstances, the Second Appeal as against the said Lakshmi Chand (plaintiff-respondent) stands abated.
14. As noted above, the said Lakshmi Chand was the sole plaintiff-respondent.
15. The second appeal, therefore, stands dismissed as having abated.