IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2000 SHRI RAMKRISHNA J.PINGUE & ORS. ... Appellant Versus SHRI JANU N.GAONKAR & ORS. ... Respondent Mr.R. G. Ramani,Advocate for respondents no.1 & 3. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 4th January, 2010 P.C. None present for the appellants. 2. Order dated 21.7.2009 reveals that the appellants were in the process of entrusting the appeal to learned Advocate Ms. Sapna Mordekar in place of learned Advocate Ms. R. Chodankar who has ceased to practice in Goa and time was granted for completing the said process. The appellants were cautioned to complete the process of changing over of the Advocate on or before 4.8.2009 or else to face the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Now learned Advocate Ms. Sapna Mordekar appears and submits that some time may be granted to keep on record the steps taken by her to caution the appellants. However facts remain that not only appellants were cautioned by order dated 21.7.2009 for taking steps to engage a substitute for earlier Advocate Ms. R. Chodankar, but also sufficient time was granted for taking such steps. Considerable time has passed since the last date fixed for filing appearance on behalf of the appellants. It was the duty of the appellants to have taken due note of the caution and engaged substitute in place of learned Advocate Ms. R. Chodankar. It appears that appellants have wasted this opportunity for complying with the order dated 21.7.2009. May be they are not interested in pursuing this appeal for the reason that they have lost before the Trial Court second time in proving their claim following the remand of this matter to the trial Court for deciding a fresh, the issue of apportionment of compensation after hearing the parties and taking into consideration all material on record. 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Sapna Mordekar placed on record the registered post receipt no. 156 from book 442 dated 24.7.2009 issued by Central Telegraph Office, Panaji in respect of the registered post communication addressed to the appellants for communicating the order dated 21.7.2009. 5. In view of this, the appeal stands dismissed for want of non prosecution. U. D. SALVI, J. vn