HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SECOND APPEAL No. - 94 of 2005 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. On 23.5.2024 notices were issued to the appellants to engage another counsel. 2. Office report dated 12.9.2024 repeated on 22.5.2025 indicates that notice issued to appellant nos. 1/1, 1/3, 1/4, 2/5 and 2/6 have not returned back after service. Notice sent to appellant no. 1/2 has returned back with postal remark 'मुंबई चला गया है िनि्ात आने का पता नहीं, अतः ्ऺेषक को वापस।' Notice sent to appellant no. 2/1 has returned back with the postal remark ' मृत्यु हो चुका है, अतः ्ऺेषक को वापस। Notice sent to appellant nos. 2/2 to 2/4 has returned back with the postal remark 'िदल्ली चले गये है िनि्ात आने का पता नहीं है अतः ्ऺेषक को वापस। Notice sent to appellant nos. 2/7 to 2/9 has returned back with the postal remark 'शादी हो गया है अपने घर पर रहती है पता न मालूम होने के कारन ्ऺेषक को वापस। 3. As the notices issued to appellant nos. 1/1, 1/3, 1/4, 2/5 and 2/6 have not returned back after service, notice upon them is deemed sufficient. Notices issued to appellant nos. 1/2, 2/2 and 2/4 have returned back as they are living in Mumbai and Delhi and there is no definite time for their returning, notice upon them is also deemed sufficient. Notice issued to appellant nos. 2/7 to 2/9 have returned back as after their marriage they are living in their matrimonial house and there is no address, notices upon them also deemed sufficient. 4. As far as appellant no. 2/1 is concerned report indicates that he had Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : M.A. Qadeer, Shamim Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Shukla, Siddarth, Virendra Kumar Shukla Tahsildar And Another .....Appellant(s) Mohammad Isa .....Respondent(s) already died and no substitution application has been filed till date and, as such, appeal as far as appellant no. 2/1 is concerned stands abated. 5. In view of the above as notices upon appellant nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 2/2, 2/4 to 2/9 have already been held to be sufficient and no one has put in appearance on their behalf, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. October 29, 2025 Shekhar SAPL No. 94 of 2005 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad