2025:UHC:9325 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SA No. 116 of 2016 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. None appears for the appellants. 2. Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 13.07.2017 though has been complied with but only one year Bank Guarantee was furnished by the appellant in terms of condition no. 2 of the order, whereby, the Coordinate Bench directed that for rest of Rs. 20 lakhs the appellant shall furnish the Bank Guarantee. 4. Thereafter, the Branch Head of Nainital Bank issued an office letter dated 25.09.2020 addressed to the Registrar General of High Court and informed that the Bank Guarantee no. 27 dated 08.08.2017 for Rs. 20 lakhs on behalf of Ms. Hari Krishana Tiwari and Sons has expired on 07.08.2018 and the bank has been discharged from all the liabilities, which were mention in B.G. No. 27. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this court by order dated 21.12.2022 take note of the letter dated 25.09.2020 issued by the bank and the appellants were directed to furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20 lakhs before any nationalized bank within a period of 15 days. 5. Thereafter, a recall application has been moved by the appellant bearing IA No. 15986 of 2023 along with delay condonation application i.e. IA No. 15987 of 2023 for recall of the order dated 13.07.2017 as corrected vide order dated 21.12.2022 with a further relief that the appeal may be heard for admission and the amount as deposited before this court be released in favour of the appellant. This application is still pending. 6. It is very strange that the order dated 03.01.2017 was admittedly earlier complied with by the appellant by depositing the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as well as the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20 lakhs, which was already expired on 07.08.2018 as 2025:UHC:9325 per the letter of the bank dated 25.09.2020, therefore, the question is once the order has been complied with whether the appellant can pray for recall of the order dated 13.07.2017. It appears that the application moved for recalling the order, which was already complied with by the appellant is thoroughly misconceived. Apart from this, instant second appeal was filed in the year 2016 and though the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench reflects that the appeal was admitted subject to fulfilling the twin conditions as stipulated in the order but the second condition has not been complied with uptill date and even on perusal of this order no question of law has been framed, therefore, in such an eventuality when the appeal was filed in the year 2016 and the same has yet not been admitted on any substantial question of law and today learned counsel for the appellant is not present, as such, the instant second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and all interim orders passed earlier shall stand vacated. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.10.2025 PR 2025:UHC:9325