Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Paras Ram & Anr on 4 November, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CMP(M) No. 1159 of 2023
Decided on: 4.11.2024
State of H.P. & others
... Appellants
Versus
Paras Ram & anr.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
___________________________________________________
For the Appellants: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.Gs.
For the Respondents :Mr. Munish Dhatwalia,
Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The applicants have filed the Regular Second
Appeal, before this Court, against the judgment and
decree, dated 29.11.2021, passed by the Court of learned
District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned First Appellate
Court')., in Civil Appeal No. 27/13 of 2019, titled as, 'State
of H.P. & others versus paras Ram & anr.'. Vide judgment
and decree dated 29.11.2021, the learned First Appellate
Court has dismissed the appeal of the applicants, which
was preferred against the judgment and decree, dated
30.3.2019, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as 'the learned trial Court'), in Civil Suit No.
134/1 of 2015, titled as, 'Paras Ram & anr. versus State of
H.P. & others'. Vide judgment and decree, dated
30.3.2019, the learned trial Court has partly decreed the
suit of the respondents, by passing the decree for
possession, in respect of the suit land, in favour of the
respondents.
2. Since, the appeal, preferred before this Court is
barred by limitation, as such, the present application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been moved, for
condonation of delay, which, as per the application is, 445
days.
3. The delay has mainly been attributed to the fact
that after passing of judgment and decree by learned First
Appellate Court, the matter has been dealt with, at various
levels. The application has duly been supported by an
affidavit of the Superintending Engineer, 10 th Circle,
HPPWD, Bilaspur, H.P.
4. When, put to notice, the application has been
contested by the respondents, by filing the reply, in which
they have taken preliminary objections that the
application is not maintainable and applicants are
estopped from filing the present application, on account of
their acts and conducts.
5. On merits, whatsoever ground has been taken in
the application ,for condonation of delay, has not only
been controverted, but, it has been asserted that the
applicants have miserably failed to explain the inordinate
delay, in preferring the Regular Second Appeal. Reply filed
by the non-applicants has also been supported by non-
applicant Paras Ram.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed, on 27.5.2024:
i) Whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
OPA
ii) Relief.
7. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to
adduce evidence.
8. Applicants have examined AW-1 Jagat Ram.
At the relevant time, AW-1 was working as Assistant
Engineer in Sub Division, Namhol, whereas,
respondents/non-applicants have not opted to enter the
witness box.
9. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
Reasons For Findings
10. Onus to prove this issue is on the applicants.
In order to prove this issue, applicants have examined
Jagat Ram, who has deposed, as per the averments, made
in the application. He has deposed that the file, after the
decision, was received in the department and thereafter,
the matter has been dealt with, at various levels.
11. This witness, in the cross-examination, has
admitted that official correspondence, regarding
processing of the case file, as per the stand taken in the
examination-in-chief, has not been placed on record. He
has further admitted that the file was signed by the
concerned Superintending Engineer on 13.12.2022,
whereas, the appeal was filed on 7.1.2023.
12. All these facts have been highlighted in the
cross-examination to show the reasons for condonation of
delay in the present case.
13. Heard.
14. It is not disputed that the applicants are
impersonal machinery, acting through its officials.
Admittedly, the matter has been dealt with, at various
levels and in order to complete codal formalities, the same
has been processed by various authorities, at different
levels.
15. Interestingly, no suggestion has been given to
AW-1 that there was inaction or negligence on part of the
applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants could not
satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to what
object the applicants are going to achieve, by not
preferring the appeal, within time, had they not been
prevented to do so by the reasons, as mentioned in the
application, under consideration.
16. It is no longer res-integra that the matter
should be decided on merits and not on technicalities.
Thus, while deciding the application, under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the Court is required to take a liberal
view. The statement on oath made by AW-1 has not been
controverted by the respondent by appearing in the
witness box.
17. In view of above, issue No. 1 is decided in
favour of the applicants.
Relief
18. In view of the findings, recorded on issue No.
1, delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal is ordered to
be condoned. The application is, thus, allowed and
disposed of, as such.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
4.11.2024
Kalpana
