Sundla vs. Narinder Chauhan & Anr. CMP(M) No.1925 of 2025 12.05.2026 Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents. Applicant-Sundla has filed the accompanying Regular Second Appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.28-S/13 of 2019/2016, titled as ‘Sundla versus Narinder Chauhan and another’. The learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant. The said appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Court No.IV, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’), in case RBT No.82-1 of 15/09, titled as Sundla versus Narinder Chauhan and another, whereby, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said civil suit. Since, the accompanying appeal has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application, for condonation of delay, has been filed. In the said application, delay is stated to be about 3 months, however, as per report of Registry, there is delay of 105 days, in filing the appeal. The delay has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground of mis-communication/non-communication between the applicant and learned counsel representing the applicant. Application is duly supported by the affidavit of SPA of applicant. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by the respondents, denying the factual position, as mentioned in the application. It has also been stated in the reply that the applicant is a retired government employee and having his own house at Bhattakuffar in Shimla. All these facts have been pleaded to show that the application lacks the material to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Reply is duly supported by the affidavit of respondent No.1. Heard. The unsuccessful applicant has approached this Court by way of the accompanying appeal. Although, the factual position has been controverted in the reply, but, how the applicant is negligent or careless has not elaborately been explained. In the absence of any ulterior motive, which the applicant is going to achieve in not preferring the appeal, this Court is of the view that the matter will be decided, on merit, and not on the basis of the technicalities. As such, the application under consideration is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. Application stands disposed. RSA No. _______ of 2026 Vide order of the even date, passed in CMP(M) No.1925 of 2025, the delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal has been ordered to be condoned. Appeal be registered. For admission hearing, list on 16.06.2026. In the meanwhile, record of the learned trial Court, as well as, the learned First Appellate Court be requisitioned. (Virender Singh) Judge May 12, 2026 (subhash)