Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 28.07.2025 vs State Bank Of India & Another on 28 July, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:24532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.242 of 2019
Decided on: 28.07.2025
.
Krishan Chand ... Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
r Name of respondent No.3 stands
deleted.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following relief:-
"In view of the aforesaid submission it is most humbly
prayed that Order dated 24.03.2017 Annexure P-5 may
kindly be set-aside being illegal, untenable in the eyes of
law so also Order dated 14.07.2005 and 13.10.2006
Annexure P-1 Colly may also kindly be set-aside in the
interest of justice and fair play."
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.03.2017,
passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan,
District Solan, H.P., Camp at Arki (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof,
a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Section
144 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the order passed by the
said Court on 30.09.2010, has been dismissed by the learned Court
below.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:24532
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition
that the petitioner who is a Judgment Debtor, suffered certain
.
orders passed by learned Executing Court in the execution petition
preferred by the Decree Holder against the Judgment Debtor. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review against the same. This review
petition was dismissed by learned Executing Court. The petitioner
assailed the said order passed by learned Executing Court in the
review petition by way of CMPMO No.73 of 2011 before this Court.
Said CMPMO was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure
P-3, which reads as under:-
"The petitioners should have first approached the learned
trial Court before coming to this Court. The petition is
rejected with liberty reserved to the petitioners to
approach the learned Executing Court for redressal of his
grievances. No order as to costs."
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another review petition under
Section 114 read with Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code before
learned Executing Court by referring to the order passed by this
Court on 16.03.2011, which has been dismissed in terms of the
impugned order.
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that
the CMPMO No.73 of 2011 was disposed of by the Court on
16.03.2011, order passed wherein has already been quoted by me
hereinabove. Thereafter, the second review petition was preferred by
the petitioner, which was dismissed by learned Executing Court on
24.03.2017. Present petition has been filed against the order passed
2025:HHC:24532
by learned Executing Court on 27.05.2019, meaning thereby that
after more than two years as from the date of passing of the
.
impugned order. There is no justification given in the petition as to
why the petitioner has approached this Court against the order
passed by learned Executing Court so late. The reasons spelled out
in Para-13 of the petition that the petitioner had gone out of State in
connection with his livelihood etc. and that it was in the month of
May, 2017 that he obtained certified copy of the order and thereafter,
he approached he approached his counsel at Shimla in the month of
June, 2018 to prepare the case and thereafter, he could not come to
Shimla on account of his ill-health etc. and that he was a poor rustic
villager, do not impress the Court.
5. There is indeed unexplained delay in the filing of this
petition as the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Court
against the impugned order as per his own convenience.
6. Though, this Court is aware that there is no limitation
prescribed for approaching this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, yet the party has to approach the Court within
some reasonable time and if there is delay in approaching the Court,
then reasons for delay have to be satisfactorily explained.
7. As I have already observed hereinabove, a perusal of the
grounds of review petition demonstrates that the review was not
being sought on the ground that there was some error apparent on
the face of the record, but for the reasons which amount to attacking
the orders on merit. The same is not permissible in review
2025:HHC:24532
jurisdiction, because a party can seek review only if there is an error
apparent on the face of the record. Besides this, in terms of the
.
provisions of the provisions of Order 47, Rule 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code, reference whereof is also there in the impugned
order, the review of review otherwise is not permitted in law.
8. Therefore, in the above backdrop, as this Court does not
finds any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below,
this petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 28, 2025
(Rishi)
