1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.312/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.312/1999. Suraj Mal. VERSUS United India Insurance Company and Another.. 22.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.R.P.Vijay, for the appellant. Mr.Tripurari Sharma, for the respondent. ***** Matter comes up from the default side. The process server made a report on 05.02.2007 in respect of the summons sent to the respondent No.2 Yashoda Bai that she does not reside at village Karwad, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota but has started living in Kota at her parental house. This court, therefore, directed the appellant to submit fresh notices with fresh address of the respondent No.2. Process fee and notices were not filed and the case was listed before the Registrar on 03.12.2007 and two weeks time was allowed for filing the required process fee and notices with correct and fresh address of the unserved respondent No.2. The said compliance was not made and the matter came to be listed in the court on 02.01.2008 but again two weeks time was allowed for filing the process fee and notices with correct address. The process fee and 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.312/1999 notices were filed but not with the correct and fresh address of the respondent and as such report was made on 21.02.2008 to this effect. On the aforesaid report, the matter came to be listed in the court on 04.03.2008 and the court passed a peremptory order on 04.03.2008 allowing one week's time for filing the process fee and notices with fresh address failing which the appeal was ordered to be dismissed without reference to the court. Thereafter, process fee and notices were filed on 20.03.2008. A look at the aforesaid notices would go to show that the same were filed on the same address of the respondent No.2 i.e. resident of Karwad, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota and the fresh address of the respondent No.2 was not given in the notices filed. Accordingly, when the summons were sent at the old address, the process server again made a report on 13.08.2008 to the effect that Smt.Yashoda Bai, respondent No.2, does not reside in Karwad but she has proceeded to her parental house in Kotadi Gordhanpura, Kota. In view of the fact that on 04.03.2008 the court had passed a peremptory order directing the appellant to file process fee and notices with the fresh and correct address of the respondent No.2 failing which the appeal would stand dismissed without reference to the court and in spite of the aforesaid, the appellant failed to file the process fee and notices on the correct and fresh address, I find that the compliance of the 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.312/1999 order dated 04.03.2008 has not been made by the appellant. It is also not understood why the Registry did not bring this fact to the notice of the court by listing the appeal for dismissal of the appeal in terms of the order dated 04.03.2008. Consequently, the appeal is as well as the stay application are dismissed in the light of the order dated 04.03.2008. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.