80 28.09.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FAT 3858 of 1992 Kartick Lal Sing Vs. Jamuna Prosad Shaw 1. None appears on behalf of the parties nor is any adjournment prayed for even in the second call. 2. This matter was appearing in the Warning List and the parties are deemed to have had sufficient notice that the same would be taken up for hearing. 3. It appears from the Report dated 25 September 2026 filed by the Department that the defects pointed out by the Department have not been cured. 4. In view of the above, FAT 3858 of 1992 stands dismissed for default. 5. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Atarup Banerjee, J.]