THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.913 of 2000 Date: 18-02-2010 Between V.Sita Ronfed … Appellant/Petitioner and V.Ronfed and two others … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.913 of 2000 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, reports no instructions. 2. On the earlier occasion, it was recorded by this Court that respondent No.1 was not served by the Registry because of the address of respondent No.1 furnished in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal was hopelessly inadequate. Therefore, the learned Counsel for appellant was directed to furnish the latest address of respondent No.1 and he was also permitted to take out personal notice by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due to respondent No.1 and file proof of the same. 3. But, now, it is represented by the learned Counsel for appellant that despite his best efforts, he could not ascertain the address of the appellant nor he is able to come into contact with him, as a result the notice on respondent No.1 could not be served at all. 4. In view of the said fact and particularly, in view of the fact that the learned Counsel for appellant reports no instructions, prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant is not keen in prosecuting the case with diligence. 5. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY 18th February, 2010. Ak