Usha Devi vs. Leela Devi CMP (M) No. 478 & 479/2023 9.3.2026 Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Azmad Hayat Mohd. Khan, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. The present applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the judgments and decrees dated 13.07.2022 in C.A. No. 06/2020 and C.A. No. 07/2020, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, respectively. It has been averred that after procuring copy of the judgment dated 13.07.2022, as passed by the learned first appellate court, the applicant(s) came to Shimla in the second week of October, 2022 to meet her counsel at Shimla. Since the applicant(s) had only brought certified copy of the judgment dated 13.07.2022, the counsel at Shimla instructed her to get the entire case file. The applicant(s), after procuring the entire case file, contacted her counsel in the third week of January 2023 on telephone and she was told that on account of winter vacation, the counsel was out of station and she was advised to come to Shimla in the first week of February 2023. When the applicant(s) came to Shimla in the 3rd week of March, 2023, she was told by the counsel that there was no certified copy of the judgment of the learned trial court. Thereafter, the applicant(s) procured the certified copy of the judgment dated 31.12.2019 and accordingly, appropriate steps were taken for filing of the present appeal. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submits that the delay in filing of the present application(s) is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred owing to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) further submits that the applicant(s) is a lady and being a rustic villager, she is not aware about the intricacies of law and on that account, the present applications deserve to be allowed. 3 The applications have vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant(s) on the ground that the sufficient cause has not been furnished in the application(s) for the aforesaid delay and the same being highly belated deserve to be dismissed. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant in order to support his contention has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 of 2024, titled as Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & anr., decided on 5th August, 2024, more particularly para 20 thereof, which reads as under:- 20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” 5 From the perusal of the contents of the applications, more particularly, paras 3 to 7 thereof, which are duly supported by an affidavit(s) and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I find sufficient reasons to condone the aforesaid delay, but subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- in each application, to be paid to the respondent by the applicant/appellant on or before 16.04.2026. Ordered accordingly. Applications stand disposed of. RSA Nos. /2026 Appeals be registered. List for consideration on 16.4.2026. (Romesh Verma) Judge 9.3.2026 (pankaj)