- (1.)Since all these civil revision petitions raise similar questions of law and facts in the same circumstances, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)Brief facts relevant for the purpose for disposal of these petitions are that one Kamla Devi filed an eviction petition against the Respondents/ their predecessors-in-interest. The eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Rent Controller, the Respondents preferred four appeals before the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. All the four appeals were allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide its order dated 1.4.1999 and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller with the directions to try and decide the matter afresh after getting the memorandum of parties amended so as to implead Respondent No. 8 Sumati Devi in the original petition, as a party. After the remand said Sumati Sood was impleaded as a party before the Rent Controller and the matter was further dealt with in accordance with remand order, but without impleading the Respondents other than the Respondents already impleaded as parties and Sumati Sood. The Rent Controller finally passed the eviction order. Being aggrieved, the Respondents preferred three separate appeals before the learned Appellate Authority which allowed all such appeals and remanded the case on the ground that the learned Rent Controller had not followed the order dated 1.4.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Authority and it failed to join all the Appellants whose appeals were accepted as parties party when the case was received by him on remand. Being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Appellate Authority, the Petitioner has preferred these petitions.
(3.)I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.