C.Rev.A.No.S-136 of 2011

1. For orders on office objection

2. For orders on CMA-184/2013

3. For orders on CMA-630/2011

4. For orders on CMA-55/2014

5. For Katcha Peshi

12.10.2015

Mr. Manoj Kumar Tejwani for respondent No.1.

.................

The applicant and her attorney are called absent in spite of issuance of intimation notice, no intimation received. On the last date of hearing also no one was in attendance on behalf of the applicant when the following order was passed:

“Applicant and her Attorney called absent, no intimation received. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the instant civil revision application being misconceived, is also time barred and pending since 2011. Let intimation notice be issued to the applicant and her Attorney for the next date of hearing. However, with note of caution that if nobody appeared on behalf of applicant on the next date of hearing, instant civil revision application will be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is concurrent findings in favour of the respondent, whereas, the suit filed by the applicant seeking declaration and cancellation of registered sale deed was dismissed by the learned trial Court and such judgment was maintained by the appellate Court against which instant civil revision application has been filed which is also time barred. Per learned counsel, instant civil revision application is pending since 2011 without any useful progress, whereas, possession of subject-property is with the respondent.

It appears that in view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has either lost interest to proceed with the matter or does not have any explanation regarding maintainability of the instant civil revision application, after expiry of limitation period. Accordingly, this Court has left with no option but to dismiss instant civil revision application along with the listed applications on account of non-prosecution.

JUDGE

N.M.