High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 04 SHI CK 0121

Mohinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 April 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 768 Of 2020

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 475 words

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

1.

This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2.

The impugned judgment was passed on 15.1.2018, whereby judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by trial Court, dismissing the suit of the applicant

filed for declaration and alternatively for permanent prohibitory injunction qua suit property, was affirmed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil

Appeal preferred by the applicant. Present appeal has been filed on 9.10.2020.

3.

Taking into consideration order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, after excluding the time from

15.3.2020 till filing of the appeal, i.e. 9.10.2020, it has been found that appeal is barred by 1 year 10 months and 27 days.

4.

It is stated in the application that copy of impugned judgment was received on 6.3.2018. It is evident from the stamp of Copying Agency that

certified copy of impugned judgment was applied on 24.1.2018 and it was complete for delivery on 23.2.2018. However, it has been received in

March, 2020. Be that as it may, it is a fact that present application has been preferred on 9.10.2020. Reasons disclosed, for not filing appeal for almost

2 years, is that during white wash in the house of applicant in March, 2018, copy of judgment was misplaced and it was not traceable and it is only on

15.3.2020 copy was found amongst other papers in another Almirah of the house and thereafter applicant had immediately consulted the counsel

representing him in District Court, Solan, who has advised him to file appeal by stating the aforesaid facts for condonation of delay.

5.

Possibility of misplacing the copy of impugned judgment cannot be ruled outrightly. However, conduct of the applicant indicates that he was not

interested in contesting the case for almost 2 years because when copy was misplaced in the month of March, 2018 and it was not available with him,

then he had to make an endevour to obtain another copy but there is nothing on record to point out any reason about any such attempt made by

applicant or for not making such effort by applicant to obtain another copy of the judgment by contacting the Advocate representing him before

District Judge, Solan, so as to assail the said judgment, rather, as claimed, applicant kept on sleeping till the copy was traced in the month of March,

2020, meaning thereby, had it not been traced in March, 2020, appeal would not have been filed even till date. The applicant has not taken any overt

act to assail the impugned judgment within reasonable period.

6.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that there is no reasonable ground or sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal

within time. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay for want of sufficient cause is dismissed.