[2026:RJ-JP:28322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 251/1995 CNR: RJHC020000351995 | URN: CFA / 482U / 1995 Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Basanti Lal, aged 40 years, r/o Goner Road, Opposite Patasa Factory, Shanti Kunj, Jaipur, Shop No.7, Galta Road, Surajpole Gate, Jaipur. ----Appellant/Defendant Versus Shri Venkatesh Mandir & Aushdhalaya Trust, Surajpole Gate, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma on behalf of Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Sr.Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 23/07/2026 1. The present first appeal has been filed by the appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No. 17/1995 titled as 'Shri Venkatesh Mandir & Aushdhalaya Trust Vs. Bhagwan Das', whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction and arrears of rent was decreed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of the present first appeal, the respondent has already vacated the suit property on 26.03.1999 and has also paid the arrears of rent. He further submits that the impugned judgment and decree has already been satisfied before the Executing Court. [2026:RJ-JP:28322] (2 of 2) [CFA-251/1995] 3. In order to prove the aforesaid fact the learned counsel for the respondent has produced an application filed before the Executing Court dated 01.12.1999. 4. Certified copy of the said application dated 01.12.1999 is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 6. From a bare perusal of the previous order-sheets, it is reflected that on 28.04.2025, 02.07.2025, 27.08.2025, and 01.07.2026, the matter was listed, yet, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Thus, in view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the present matter. 7. In view of the above, the present civil first appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for revival of the present first appeal (subject to the applicable period of limitation), in case he feels that the cause of action still survives. 8. Accordingly, the present civil first appeal stands dismissed. 9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 1/Seema