HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.NO.2545 OF 1996 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in O.S.No.144 of 1988. The appellant-plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of amount due on account dealings. In the said suit the 2nd respondent- defendant was made as party on the ground that it purchased the assets of the 1st respondent-defendant. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-plaintiff filed the present appeal. Notice sent to the 2nd respondent-defendant in this appeal was returned unserved with an endorsement “Party left”. On 13.6.2011, while observing that unless the 2nd respondent-defendant is served, no decree can be passed against both the defendants, this Court permitted the Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff to take out notice to the 2nd respondent-defendant by way of substitute service by publishing the same in “The Hindu” English daily of Madras edition indicating that the appeal stands posted for hearing and disposal on 4.7.2011 and file proof of service. It was also made clear that if the appellant-plaintiff fails to comply with the order, the appeal stands dismissed against the 2nd respondent-defendant, without any further reference to the Court. The proceeding sheet discloses that the time granted by this Court on 13.6.2011 was not extended further. Therefore, the appeal is automatically dismissed against the 2nd respondent-defendant as per the orders of this Court dated 13.6.2011. Originally, the relief is sought for against both the respondents- defendants. The plaint averments go to show that the 1st respondent- defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of all its assets and liabilities with the 2nd respondent-defendant on 16.2.1987 and in pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent-defendant had taken possession and charge of the running of transport business of the 1st respondent-defendant and continue to run the same under the same name and style and therefore, the 2nd defendant was made as a party to the suit. The statement of the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint itself makes it clear that in the absence of the 2nd respondent-defendant, no adjudication can be made. In view of the same and in view of the non-compliance of the order dated 13.6.2011, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J) ________________ (K.S. Appa Rao, J) 16.8.2011 NN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S No. 2545 of 1996 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) 16.08.2011