77 28.09.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FAT 3525 of 1992 Sri Sudharshan Kumar Vs. Sri Gangdeo Roy & Ors. 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 4 January 1994 filed by the Department that the defects pointed out by the Department have not been cured. 4. In view of the above, FAT 3525 of 1992 stands dismissed for default. 5. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Atarup Banerjee, J.]