JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. It appears that Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 203618 of 2005 (dated 17-10-2005) has been filed consequent to the death of Sia Ram (plaintiff-appellant).
2. By the order dated 17-10-2005 passed by the Joint Registrar, notice was directed to be issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application.
3. By the order dated 17-11-2005, Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant was granted ten days' further time for taking steps for issuance of notice on the aforementioned Substitution Application, pursuant to the said order dated 17-10-2005 passed by the Joint Registrar.
4. Further, by the said order dated 17-11-2005, notices were directed to be issued by Registered Post A.D., fixing 2nd February, 2006.
5. The Office submitted its Report dated 01-02-2006 to the effect that the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant had not taken steps for issuance of notices on the aforementioned Substitution Application, pursuant to the said order dated 17-10-2005 passed by the Joint Registrar, read with the said order dated 17-11-2005 passed by the Court.
6. In view of the said Report, the Court, by its order dated 6th March, 2006, directed the case to be listed under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
7. The case is, accordingly, listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court with the Office Report dated 25lh July, 2006.
8. The said Office Report dated 25th July, 2006, inter-alia, reiterates that the requisite steps for issuance of notices on the aforementioned Substitution Application, pursuant to the orders mentioned above, have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant.
9. The case has been taken up in the revised list today.
10. The learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant is not present.
11. Even though, the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, the requisite steps have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-appellant (Sia Ram).
12. In the circumstances, the Court has no option but to dismiss the aforementioned Substitution Application for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
13. The aforementioned Substitution Application, namely, Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 2036 18 of 2005 is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
14. As mentioned above, the aforementioned Substitution Application was filed consequent to the death of Sia Ram (plaintiff-appellant).
15. In view of the dismissal of the aforementioned Substitution Application for want of prosecution, the Second Appeal, at the instance of the said Sia Ram (plaintiff-appellant), stands abated.
16. The said Sia Ram was the sole plaintiff-appellant.
17. Therefore, the Second Appeal stands dismissed, as having abated.