IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.353 of 1981 RABINDRA KR. SINGH & ORS Versus PRASHANT KR. CHATTERJEE & ORS ----------- 34 11.04.2011 No one appears. Perused the office note. By order dated 15.01.2008 notices were directed to be issued to the appellants to engage another counsel as learned counsel appearing for them had expired. Notices have been issued under both processes. Notice under ordinary process has been received by appellant nos. 1 and 2 and appellant no. 2 has also received notice on behalf of appellant no. 3. There is nothing on record to show that they are living separately or there has been partition amongst themselves. So far notice under registered cover is concerned, neither the undelivered registered cover nor A/D has been returned as yet. In above view of the matter, service of notices on the appellants is accepted as valid. Office has also raised the issue as to whether in view of the fact that none has appeared on behalf of the appellants by filing vakalatnama, this appeal is competent to proceed with. 2 Since the office has reported that none has appeared on behalf of the appellants by filing vaakalatnama, in my opinion, this appeal is incompetent to proceed with in the absence of the appellants. As a result, this appeal is dismissed as having become incompetent. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)