THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.168 of 1994 O R D E R: Heard Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Murali Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Murali Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent has produced a letter into Court addressed by one Mohd. Abdul Raoof, claiming to be the son of the original partner of the appellant by name M.A.Azeez, who is no more. In the letter it is stated that Sri M.A.Azeez died on 21.06.1997 and the firm was dissolved even during his life time. The letter stated that all the legal heirs of his father gave power of attorney in favour of Mohd.Abdul Raoof, who settled the matter with the respondent for delivery of possession of the subject premises after withdrawal of the appeal. Sri Mohd.Abdul Raoof, also informed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant through that letter that he is withdrawing the appeal. The predicament of Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for the appellant is stated to be the absence of any response from Sri M.A.Azeez, one of the original partners of the appellant-firm to his communications for taking steps or proceeding with the appeal. Sri Balchand is also stated to be disabled from stating anything about the alleged settlement as the name of Sri M.A.Raoof is not found in the original partnership. The general power of attorney referred to by Mohd. Abdul Raoof, does not contain the names of any of the original partners. Sri S.Balchand, therefore, expressed his inability either to proceed with the appeal or to withdraw the appeal in the absence of appropriate instructions from persons duly authorised to represent the appellant-firm and the learned counsel also has stated that he does not know whether the firm is still in existence or it stood dissolved. Sri Murali Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the respondent stated that there was in fact a dissolution dated 22.11.1990. Under the circumstances, as no person authorised to represent the appellant is giving instructions to the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.Balchand, the learned counsel is, therefore, disabled from proceeding with the prosecution of the appeal and further in the light of the letter relied on by the respondent, the appeal has to fail for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 7th July, 2010. PNV