2025:HHC:116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 271 of 2016 Date of decision: 1 .1.202 5 Barfi Ram (deceased) through LRs. …Appellants. Versus Kaka Ram (deceased) through LRs. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Respondent No. 1(a) stands deleted. Mr.Hitesh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1(b) to 1(e). Respondent No. 1(f) is ex parte vide order dated 28.12.2021. Respondent No. 1(g) is stated to have expired. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Steps on account of death of respondent No. 1(g) has not been taken. After designation of Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate as Senior Advocate, fresh Power of Attorney has also not been filed. 2. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate submits that despite repeated efforts made by the Office of Advocate representing the appellant, no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:116 RSA No. 271 of 2016 response has been received and, therefore, neither fresh Power of Attorney could be filed nor steps on account of death of respondent No. 1(g) could be taken. 3. From the aforesaid submission, it appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter and accordingly, appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution alongwith pending applications. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 1st January, 2025 Judge. (Keshav) 2