IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO Nos. 359 of 2010, 360 of 2010, 361 of 2010 & 362 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.12.2010. CMPMO No.359 of 2010 Meera Devi. …Petitioner. Versus Bimla Devi and another …Respondents. CMPMO No.360 of 2010 Satya Devi. …Petitioner. Versus Bimla Devi and another …Respondents. CMPMO No.361 of 2010 Lachhi Ram and others. …Petitioners. Versus Bimla Devi and another …Respondents. CMPMO No.362 of 2010 Baljeet Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus Bimla Devi and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. (in all the petitions) For the petitioners: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent No.2: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. These petitions are directed against the order dated 19.12.2009 whereby last opportunity was given to the petitioner(s) to lead evidence and it was further ordered that the claimants would not 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 be entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded, if any, from the date of filing of the petition till the conclusion of their evidence. 2. Shri Aman Sood, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed on record order dated 19.2.2010 which shows that the main petitions were dismissed in default and thereafter on 1.12.2010 even the petitions filed for setting aside the petitions dismissed in default have also been dismissed. Therefore, the present petitions do not survive and are rejected. In case the main petitions are revived then the petitioner may apply for revival of these petitions. 6th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge