Jyoti Mulimani, J
When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of appellant, either personally or through video conferencing.
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., learned counsel for respondent No.3 has appeared through video conferencing.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 08.04.2024, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, hence the office was directed to list this matter under the caption 'for dismissal' on 16.04.2024. The appeal was listed on 16.04.2024, on that day, at request on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3, it was ordered to be listed on 22.04.2024.
The appeal is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, either personally or through video conferencing. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
