1 12 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.161/2007. Abdul Kadir Vs. Aziza Bano & Ors. Date of Order :: 5th December 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the appellant. Mr. S.G. Ojha, the respondents. .... BY THE COURT: Nobody is present for the appellant though the matter has been called out twice over. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2007 as passed by the District Judge, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 5/2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Aziza Bano (since deceased and represented by her legal representatives) was decreed as against the appellant-defendant No.1 and the alleged Will dated 07.02.1992 was declared null and void as against the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. This first appeal was admitted for consideration by the Registrar (Administration) on 13.04.2007. After completion of service, when the matter was taken up on 07.05.2008, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that he had moved an application for interim relief and, though nobody was present for the appellant, the office was directed to list the 2 matter for orders on 16.05.2008. The matter was thereafter taken up on 19.05.2008 while the office reported that no such application was filed; however, nobody was present for either of the parties and the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2008. On 22.07.2008, learned counsel appearing for the respondents again submitted that an application for interim relief was moved after supplying a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the appellant on 30.07.2007. Again, though nobody was present for the appellant, but the matter was ordered to be listed with complete report on 01.08.2008. The office again reported that no such application had been filed but then, nobody was present for either of the parties on 01.08.2008 and, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter, the matter was taken up only on 06.11.2008 and again nobody was present for the appellant but, as the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for time to complete his instructions, the matter was adjourned for four weeks and in this manner has come up for consideration today. It is noticed that in this appeal, consecutively on 07.05.2008, 19.05.2008, 22.07.2008, 01.08.2008, and 06.11.2008 nobody appeared for the appellant and today again, nobody is present for the appellant though the matter has been called out twice over. 3 Regular default in appearance on behalf of the appellant only shows that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting this appeal; and there does not appear any reason to keep this appeal pending any further. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni