1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1964 of 2025 Date of decision: 12.05.2026. Sukh Pal Singh ...Applicant Versus General Public. ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. For the applicant Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): CMP No. 1964 of 2025 As per report of the Registry, notice issued to the sole respondent stands published on 30.03.2026 but, none has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondent, therefore, General Public is proceeded against ex-parte. 2. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the present appeal. It has been stated in the application that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 30.05.2025. After passing of the impugned one Digvijay had applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 05.06.2025. It has been averred that the same was prepared on 06.06.2025 and received on 26.06.2025. The applicant came to know about the factum of decision of appeal only on 04.10.2025 when he contacted his counsel before the learned Lower Court, as the applicant had gone to Punjab in connection 2 with his business and he returned from Punjab quite late.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but the same has occurred under the unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond the control of the applicant/appellant. 3. Keeping in view the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit delay is condoned, the present application is allowed and the delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed off. Appeal be registered. RSA No. 125 of 2026 The present regular second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (II), Mandi dated 30.05.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi dated 26.09.2023 was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction and consequential relief with a prayer that plaintiff is a Sikh Tarkhan and gotra Bhumra and the great grand father of the plaintiff belongs to Mauja Rampur Tehsil Daskae District Siyalkot, Pakistan. It has been averred that the the grand father of the plaintiff has been recorded as occupancy tenant vide mutation No. 428, duly attested by the 3 learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. on 05.06.1963 for the landed property bearing Khasra No. 186,187,188,390/189 and 391/189, Kitas 5, measuring 1-7-7 bighas situated in Mauja Suhra/87,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. in Shajara Revenue Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid. The caste of the father of the plaintiff has been recorded as Sikh and gotra has been recorded as Bhumra and in Sajara revenue of the father of the plaintiff, the Caste has been recored as Sikh and Gotra Namdhari, i.e caste has been Sikh Namdhari. The plaintiff/appellant had filed an application for the correction of caste to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. on 03.08.2016 and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade called report from the field Agency and the field agency after taking the statements of local inhabitants and verifying the record, the report was submitted. It has been averred that the plaintiff/appellant came to know about the mistake in May,2016, when the plaintiff wanted to get his Caste Certificate and went to Patwari concerned. It is only then he came to know about the said facts. Therefore, the suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff. 3. The General Public has been arrayed as party defendant and notice of the suit was issued by way of publication. None had appeared for any members of General Public, therefore, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. 4 4. The plaintiff was directed to lead evidence in support of his contentions. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.09.2023, dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 5. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/appellant had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge- II,Mandi, District Mandi on 30.11.2023. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.05.2025, dismissed the appeal as preferred by the present appellant. 6. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant has approached this Court by filing instant Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court issued notice to the respondent on 20.11.2025. Today, when the matter was listed, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that he may be permitted to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that on account of formal defect, he intends to withdraw the suit and he shall file afresh suit against General Public. The said prayer of the appellant/plaintiff is accepted and he is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law in the competent Court of law. The appeal stands disposed off. In case, the appellant seeks benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the learned trial Court shall do so strictly 5 in accordance with law. After the withdrawal of the suit the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below looses its efficacy. Accordingly, the petition petition stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge 12th May, 2026. (veena)