IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.674 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4858 OF 1999 IN S.C.SUIT NO.6040 OF 1999 Shri Chotelal Ramkaran Yadav & Anr. ...Appellants Versus The Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.675 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4750 OF 1998 IN S.C.SUIT NO.5722 OF 1998 Shri Bechan Mohal Maurya ...Appellant Versus The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Anr. ...Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.676 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.7143 OF 1995 IN S.C.SUIT NO.8083 OF 1995 Shri Chotelal Ramkaran Yadav ...Appellant Versus The Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay ...Respondent : 2 : ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.677 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.7144 OF 1995 IN S.C.SUIT NO.8083 OF 1995 Shri Jaggu Chouthi Yadav ...Appellant Versus The Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ...... None for Appellants. Mr.Malandkar for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 9, 2006. JANUARY 9, 2006. JANUARY 9, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None appears for the Appellants even at the second call. Order-sheet indicates that on 10th October 2005, indulgence was shown to the Appellants to take out appropriate proceedings, as may be advised, to extricate themselves from the liability arising out of the undertaking given to this Court in the previous proceedings. : 3 : 2. From the Office noting, it appears that no steps have been taken by the Appellants in that behalf so far. As mentioned earlier, neither the Appellants nor their Advocate is present even at the second call. Hence, dismissed for non-prosecution. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.