before the Court. It is submitted that this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 2013. Thereafter restoration application was filed in the year 2016 and it is still pending i.e. SA No. 196 of 2009 has not been restored. However, Sri Maurya tried to wriggle out and seek adjournment to find status of Second Appeal No. 196 of 2009, but Bench Secretary has informed that the appeal has yet not been restored. Therefore, there is no justification in grating time to Sri Marya in asmuch as appeal which was dismissed in 2013 in which restoration was filed in 2016, and this has yet not been restored. As such dismissed appeal can not be said to have any impact on the outcome of the present appeal, especially pendency of restoration can not be said to have impact of continuation of the suit No. 233 of 1970, therefore, the instant second appeal being devoid of merit and failed to raise any substantial question of law deserves to be dismissed. The suit No. 233 of 1970 has come to an end and further once there is specific finding that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property, the courts below have not committed any error in denying the relief of prohibitory injunction. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
