IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 182 of 2024 Date of decision: 01.04.2026. State of H.P. & another ...Appellants. Versus Bala Ram (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present appeal arises out of order as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., on 16.01.2023 whereby the present appellants had preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur camp at Rampur Bushahr dated 12.09.2018. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was filed. The said application was dismissed. 2. It is contended by Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State that the appeal, which was 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- preferred before the learned first appellate Court, could not be filed on account of processing of the file through different channels and the delay was validly explained in the application. There was delay of only 103 days in filing the appeal, which was neither intentional nor willful, but the same had occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. The appellants being instrumentalities of the State and since different channels were involved for the preparation of the appeal, therefore, the delay had occurred in filing the appeal. It has been further averred that the learned first appellate Court has adopted a very hypertechnical approach by dismissing the said application. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the present appeal and defended the order as passed by learned first appellate Court. He further submitted that since there was a delay of 103 days, which remained unexplained, therefore, the impugned order is legal, valid and sustainable and does not call for any interference. 4. As per averments as made in the application, which was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned first appellate Court, it was stated that after the receipt of certified copy of the judgment, the case was sent to the Government for final approval. Thereafter the Government directed the office of the appellants to assail the judgment before the said Court. -3- 5. The said application was duly contested by the present respondents and it was averred that the delay in filing the appeal was intentional and willful. Therefore, no leniency could be shown to the State including giving special treatment for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file. 7. From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that against the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur, dated 12th September, 2018, the present appellants preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, there was delay of more than 103 days, therefore, learned first appellate Court dismissed the application vide its order dated 16.01.2023. 8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the State has preferred a time barred appeal and there was a delay in filing the appeal. However, keeping in view the fact and in view of the averments as made by learned counsel for the appellants that the State was prevented from filing the appeal within time on account of the fact that the file had to be processed from different channels of the Department and in this process, the said delay has occurred. The delay in filing the appeal before the learned first appellate Court cannot -4- be said to be an inordinate delay and sufficient grounds have been enumerated in the application for the condonation of delay. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the approach of the Court while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be pragmatic and reasonable. Therefore, in order to maintain the balance and equity between the parties, it will be desirable in the interest of justice that the application, which was filed by the present appellants before the learned first appellate Court, is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 10. Consequently, the impugned order as passed by learned first appellate Court is quashed and set aside and the appeal, as preferred by the present appellants, is restored to its original number before the learned first appellate Court. This indulgence is being shown to the appellants subject to the payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to the present respondents, to be paid by the appellants/State within a period of four weeks from today positively. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal the case is remitted back to learned Additional District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. Parties are directed to remain present before the said Court on 22nd April, 2026. 12. Needless to say, in case the costs, as imposed by this Court, is not paid to the respondents, in that event, the order dated -5- 16.01.2023 shall be revived. The appellants are further directed to deposit the costs directly in the bank accounts of the respondents, the particulars of which shall be supplied by the respondents on 22nd April, 2026 when the case is listed before the learned Additional District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. (Romesh Verma) Judge 1st April, 2026. (vt)