IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6400 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): CMP No. 8977 of 2025 By way of instant application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicants/petitioners for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2025 and for restoration of above captioned writ petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that on 11.03.2025, absence of the petitioners or their counsel is neither intentional nor willful, rather owing to circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicants/petitioners or their 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 counsel. Though applicants/petitioners had executed Power of Attorney in favour of Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate, but it appears that on account of some confusion, she failed to put in appearance. It is well settled that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault, if any, of their counsel. In the case at hand, Power of Attorney stood already executed in favour of Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate, who subsequently failed to put in appearance on account of unavoidable circumstances, this Court sees no reason to deny the prayer made in the application. 3. In view of above, present application is allowed. Order dated 11.03.2025 is recalled and CWP No. 6400 of 2024 is ordered to be restored to its original number. Application stands disposed of. CWP No. 6400 of 2024 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners, in a time bound manner. 5. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 01, 2025 (Sunil)