JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—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. 4. A perusal of the records of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 28 and 30 to 32/14 of 1998 reveals that these appeals were separately preferred by different sets of the respondents. Appeal No. 28/14 of 1998 was preferred by respondent Vishwa Nath and Chander Pal Sood, CMA No. 30/14 of 1998 was preferred by respondent Sumati Sood. C.M.A. No. 311/14 of 1998 was preferred by Uma Devi, Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kavita Sood and Radha, whereas, C.M.A. No. 32/11 of 1998 was preferred by Kirti Sood, Atul Kumar and Anuj Kumar. Appeal No. 28/14 of 1998 was preferred by respondent Vishwa Nath and Chander Pal Sood, CMA No. 30/14 of 1998 was preferred by respondent Sumati Sood. C.M.A. No. 311/14 of 1998 was preferred by Uma Devi, Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Kavita Sood and Radha, whereas, C.M.A. No. 32/11 of 1998 was preferred by Kirti Sood, Atul Kumar and Anuj Kumar. As is evident from the records all these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 1.4.1999 already referred to herein above, but separate zimni orders were passed on each file, whereby all the appeals were accepted and the case was remanded for fresh trial. In view of the acceptance of all the appeals and remand of case, presence of all the respondents-appellants before the Rent Controller was necessarily to be secured because the judgment of the appellate authority had gone in favour of all of them and none of them could be ignored from being joined/summoned as a party before the Rent Controller in the proceedings which took place after the remand order. However, except joining respondent Sumati Devi, none of other appellants who were not party to the original petition were added as party nor were summoned by the Rent Controller. It is for this reason that the learned Appellate Authority again remanded the case by the impugned judgments for rectifying the mistake i.e. to add all the parties to the petition and then dispose of the case. The conclusion arrived at and the orders passed by the appellate authority in these circumstances cannot be faulted with. In fact, all such persons whose appeals were accepted and at whose instance the case was remanded were required to be impleaded as parties to the petition which was not done. 5. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments. 6. As a result, all these petitions merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. The litigation between the parties is pending for the last about 14 years, therefore, it requires expeditious disposal. The learned Rent Controller, therefore is directed to dispose of the eviction petition in accordance with the directions given by the learned appellate authority by the impugned judgment preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the records by it. 8. The learned Rent Controller, therefore is directed to dispose of the eviction petition in accordance with the directions given by the learned appellate authority by the impugned judgment preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the records by it. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 8.9.2003. In default of appearance by either of the parties pursuant to these directions, the necessary legal consequences must follow. Petition dismissed.