Respondent was not being served.  On 06.1.2006, Counsel for the appellant got the case adjourned to enable him to file an application for substituted service on the respondent by way of publication in the newspaper.  Thereafter, an application for substituted service was filed which came up for hearing on 15.2.2006.  Bench of this Commission, after hearing counsel for the appellant, allowed the application and directed that the respondent be served by way of publication in ‘New Indian Express’ and ‘Malai Sudar’

-2-

returnable on 13.9.2006.  No publication was filed, instead counsel for the appellant sought to serve the respondent by dasti service.  Dasti notices were ordered to be issued.  Service could not be effected. 

Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 29.10.2009.  As the appellant had not served the respondent either by dasti or by way of publication, the case was adjourned for today with a direction to the counsel for the appellant to file an application for substituted service.  The same has not been done.  Counsel for the appellant is also not present.  The first order for substituted service was passed on 15.2.2006.  Nearly 4 years have elapsed since then.  But, till date application for substituted service has not been filed.   It seems that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.  Dismissed for non-prosecution.