1 ( 2026:HHC:26110 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 327 of 2024 Decided on: 02.07.2026 ________________________________________________ Dharam Prakash & Anr. ....Appellants Versus Amar Singh & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 24.06.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in CMA No. 140-N/6 of 2019, whereby, application filed by them for restoration of the appeal was dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:26110 ) 2. The perusal of the record reveals that on 19.02.2019, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed for want of prosecution due to their non appearance. Thereafter, on 13.03.2019, the appellants filed CMA No. 140- N/6 of 2019 for restoration of the appeal on the ground that they could not appear before the Court on account of illness of their son and their counsel also could not appear before the Court on account of death of his relative. However, said application was dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground that the appeal was dismissed earlier also on two occasions, firstly on 24.08.2017 and thereafter on 20.02.2018. The learned Court below while dismissing the application observed that when the appeal had already been dismissed for want of prosecution twice, therefore, the appellants were required to be more diligent in pursuing the appeal and the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution for the third time. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and have also gone through the material available on record. 3 ( 2026:HHC:26110 ) 4. It is not in dispute that the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution for the third time. It is also not in dispute that application filed for restoration of the appeal was filed well within the period of limitation after the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Though, the appellants were not diligent in pursuing the appeal, however, in the opinion of this Court, instead of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, the same should be decided on merits. By restoration of the appeal, the respondents will not be prejudiced, as they can always be compensated in terms of costs. 5. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and order dated 24.06.2024 is set aside, however, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellants to respondents No. 1 to 3 on or before the next date of hearing before the learned Court below. The appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 05.08.2026. Records be sent back forthwith. 4 ( 2026:HHC:26110 ) 6. It is made clear that if cost is not paid within the stipulated period, then, order dated 24.06.2024, dismissing the application for restoration shall stand revived without any further reference to the Court. 7. Since the appeal pertains to the year, 2017, learned Court below is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31.12.2026. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 2nd July, 2026 Judge (raman)