2026:HHC:22028 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 128 of 2026 Date of decision : 05.06.2026. Lachhmi Singh & others ...Petitioners. Versus Surender Kumar & others. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the application for restoration of the application for restoring the appeal to its original number before the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2017 in Case No. 48/1 of 2011, titled Basti Ram vs. Jagat Ram, dismissed the suit, as filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan. 4. During the pendency the appeal came to be dismissed in default on 23.04.2019. Thereafter, an application was filed for restoration of the appeal and the same was dismissed on 03.11.2023. For restoration of the said application, one fresh application bearing No. 1017-N/6 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan has ordered that since the main application already stood dismissed in default, therefore, the present application has become infructuous. 5. Notices in the present case were issued to the respondents. Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, is erroneous and required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that he has no objection in case the said application is restored to its original number and the learned First -3- Appellate Court is directed to decide the restoration application on merits. He further submits that the present petitioners be burdened with heavy costs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. 9. Admittedly, the present petitioners are in gross negligence while conducting the case. However, in the interest of justice and in order to impart substantial justice, as a matter of indulgence, this Court quash the order, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 03.11.2025, whereby the application for restoration of appeal was ordered to be dismissed in default bearing application No. 105-N/6 of 2023. The said application is ordered to be restored its original number with further direction to the learned Appellate Court to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. However, this benefit shall be given to the petitioners only a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondents on the next date of hearing. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 is set aside. The application of the petitioners for restoration of the appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid by the petitioners to the respondents, in that event, the impugned -4- order shall revive automatically. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 29.06.2026. (Romesh Verma) Judge 5th June, 2026. (kck)