IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.64/2008. Decided on: 4.8.2008. __________________________________________________ Sita Devi and another. …Petitioners. Versus Subhash Chand and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (Oral) CMP(M) No.343 of 2008. Heard. Allowed. C.R.No.64 of 2008. The present Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision are that the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ for the sake of convenience) filed a suit for possession in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 6.11.2003. The petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for the sake of convenience) filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2003 in the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala for non-prosecution on 25.9.2007. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Advocate submits that the defendants have already preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate appearing vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate submits that in fact the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved but presently there is no Presiding Judge holding the Court. He further submits that the defendants will not press this revision in case this Court directs the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala to decide the application preferred by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the interest of justice. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the application preferred by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala is heard by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala to avoid delay. Consequently, the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala is directed to consider the application filed by the defendants under Order 3 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure in appeal No.11/05/04. The records of Civil Appeal No.11/05/04 will be placed before the Learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala for obtaining orders. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 12.8.2008. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the civil revision is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 4, 2008. *awasthi*