IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No. 260 of 2006 SECRETARY U.I.T.UDAIPUR V/S ANIL KUMAR JAIN & ANR. Mr. PR MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner None present for the respondent Date of Order : 24.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record, as nobody appears for the respondent. Much was sought to be argued on the ground, that on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court, in the appeal of Ramchandra being 23/2004, the appeal of the UIT, being appeal No.8/2004 could not have been dismissed. I have considered the submission. A look at the judgment of the learned lower appellate court shows, that while deciding appeal No.23, it has been held, inter-alia, that Ramchandra was not a party in the suit, and a decree has been passed against him without giving him any opportunity of hearing, and it has been considered, that the learned trial Court has found, that when the plaintiff had given two addresses, it was responsibility of Ramchandra to issue communication at both the addresses, but then it was considered, that this was not necessary, and therefore, Ramchandra could not be held liable. In my view, this finding does not at all help the appellant, in view of the findings recorded by learned lower Appellate Court while deciding appeal No.8, inasmuch as, while deciding appeal No.8, apart from the question, as to whether the other address was given by the plaintiff or not, it has been considered, that the letter Ex.A/1 mentions to have been sent by registered A/D post, but neither postal booking receipt has been produced, nor the dispatch register of the UIT has been produced, nor the acknowledgment card about delivery of the communication, or the returned letter has been produced. Then it has also been found, that even D.W.1 and D.W.2 have not said anything, as to how it was sent, and thus, it has been found, that the defendant has failed to establish, that the communication Ex.A/1 was ever sent by it to the plaintiff. This is a pure finding of fact, and even after reading the evidence of the appellant, in my view, the finding does not require interference in second appeal. The appeal thus does not involve any substantial question of law, and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/ 2