D/L. 6. September 1, 2026. MNS. MAT No. 2296 of 2024 + CAN 1 of 2024 + CAN 2 of 2024 Sk. Sajid and others Vs. Miss Shagufta Sulaiman and others Ms. Shagufta Sulaiman … respondent no. 1 in person. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Subhrangshu Panda, Advs. …for the KMC. Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Ms. Zainab Tahur, Advs. … erstwhile learned Advocate for the appellants. 1. None appears for the appellants at the time of call. 2. The respondent no. 1, appearing in person, hands over certified copies of an affidavit-of-service indicating that, contrary to the allegations made in the present appeal by the appellants, due service was effected in respect of the writ petition, from which the present appeal arises, on the appellants. 3. The said certified copy is kept on record. 4. The erstwhile learned Advocate for the appellants, who was served copies of the appeal papers as per our direction, since serious allegations have been levelled against him by the appellants in their condonation application, submits that he had never appeared for the 2 appellants in the writ petition, in connection with which the present appeal arises, but had appeared in a different writ petition for the appellants. 5. The said learned Advocate categorically submits that although initially he had appeared for the appellants, subsequently the said Advocate came to know that there was an order of demolition passed by a co-ordinate Bench, which had been suppressed by the appellants from the said learned Advocate, upon which the said learned Advocate had clearly given out to the appellants that, in view of such material suppression, he would not appear in future for the appellants. 6. The learned Advocate further submits that subsequently on July 9, 2024, a WhatsApp communication was made by one of the appellants to the said learned Advocate, indicating that the said learned Advocate was not required to appear any further on behalf of the appellants even if the review suggested by the learned Advocate is “cancelled”. 7. A printout of the said WhatsApp message is handed over to us and is also kept on record. 8. Thus, it is argued that the allegation by the appellants before this appellate court, to the effect that the appellants had been waiting till the month of September but did not receive any communication from the said learned erstwhile Advocate, is entirely incorrect and false. 9. Be that as it may, we notice from the previous orders passed in connection with the present appeal that the 3 appellants have been consistently avoiding appearing before this Court. On August 4, 2026, the Bench had recorded that none appeared for either of the parties at the time of call. Again, on August 11, 2026, although the respondents as well as the erstwhile learned Advocate for the appellants were represented / present, none appeared for the appellants, upon which a last chance was given to the appellants to move the condonation application and the matter was adjourned till August 18, 2026. 10. The matter was next taken up on August 25, 2026, when an adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellants on the ground that a new set of counsel had been engaged by the appellants. 11. Upon noting the previous conduct of the appellants, we had recorded that keeping in view the predicament of the appellants, a final chance was given to the appellants to move the condonation application on the returnable date and that no further chance would be granted to the appellants. 12. Despite such previous orders, none appears today for the appellants at the time call, although the submissions of the erstwhile learned Advocate for the appellants and respondent no. 1 as well as the KMC have continued for quite some time. 13. In such view of the matter, it is evident that the appellants are deliberately abstaining from appearance before the court and are not interested to proceed with the appeal and the connected applications. 4 14. Hence, CAN 1 of 2024, the application for condonation of delay, is dismissed for default. 15. Consequentially, MAT No. 2296 of 2024 is dismissed as time-barred. 16. CAN 2 of 2024 is also disposed of accordingly. 17. There will be no order as to costs. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)