1 11 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.704/2004. (LRs of Gurdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Sadhu Singh & Ors.) Date of Order :: 9th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. G.J. Gupta, for the appellants. ..... BY THE COURT: On the matter being taken up for orders, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have moved an application seeking permission for substituted service of the unserved respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and prays for passing of orders on the said application. Perusal of the record makes out that as back as on 14.11.2006, the Registrar (Administration) had already considered the said application seeking permission for substituted service and permitted the appellants to get both the said respondents served by publication of their notices in the newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' having wide circulation in the concerned area at their expenses. Obviously, the submissions as made today on behalf of the appellants for passing further orders on the said application are not in conformity with the record. Perusal of the record further makes out that the notices 2 were indeed filed after passing of the said order by the Registrar (Administration) on 14.11.2006 that were issued and were given 'Dasti' by the office on 05.01.2007. Then, the matter was rotated in the office awaiting copy of the newspaper. Lastly, the matter was listed before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 07.07.2008 and again on 13.08.2008, but neither anybody was present on behalf of the appellants nor the copy of the newspaper was filed. Then, the matter was listed before the Registrar (Administration) on 17.12.2008 and it was noticed that copy of the newspaper had not been filed and nobody was present on behalf of the appellants. The submissions as made on behalf of the appellants today have already been noticed at the outset. It was for the appellants to have accounted for the notices given 'Dasti' for the purpose of publication but neither the copy of the newspaper has been filed till date nor the notices given 'Dasti' have otherwise been accounted for. The appellants having failed to carry out the requisite compliance and having not accounted for the notices given 'Dasti', this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. The appeal stands dismissed. 3 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/