2025:HHC:17543 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 14 of 2021 Date of decision: 4 .6 .202 5 Pankaj Handa & Another. ….Petitioners. Versus Vijay Kumar & Another. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr.Harshit Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ramakant Sharma and Ms.Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Mr.Harshit Sharma, Advocate appearing under instructions of original counsel Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate submits that despite making repeated efforts, petitioners are not coming forward to impart instructions and, therefore, it is not possible for counsel for the petitioners to contest the Revision Petition for want of instructions. 2. From the above statement, it appears that petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:17543 Civil Revision No. 14 of 2021 3. Accordingly, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution alongwith pending applications. 4. Needless to say that for dismissal of main matter, interim protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated 15.3.2024 passed in CMP No. 2821 of 2021, which was made absolute vide order dated 12.12.2024, also stands vacated. The petition stand disposed of alongwith pending applications. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 4th June, 2025 Judge. (Keshav) 2