IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 8830 of 2024 in RSA No.53 of 2016 Date of decision: 18.09.2025 Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Sheela Devi & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3 and 6. Respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 are ex- parte. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Despite repeated opportunities, steps in terms of order dated 28.06.2025 have not been taken. The applicant/appellant was required to file process fee alongwith correct addresses for service of respondents No. 8 and 9 and to take steps for the service of proposed Legal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Representatives of deceased respondent No. 2(a) to 2(c). Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that despite his repeated efforts, none has come forward to instruct him and thus, the necessary steps could not be taken. He has also produced copies of registered letters sent to the applicant/appellant alongwith postal receipts and the same are taken on record. 2. The record reveals that the instant appeal was earlier dismissed having been abated and also for non prosecution vide order dated 20.04.2024. Thereafter, CMP No. 8830 of 2024 was filed for restoration of the appeal and now again the applicant/appellant is not coming forward to pursue the same. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, as noticed above, it appears that the applicant/appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered to be dismissed for non prosecution. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 18th September, 2025 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez)