Ramesh Chand and others vs. Mehar Chand and another CMP(M) No. 887 of 2024 11.03.2026 Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP(M) No. 887 of 2024 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present RSA. It is admitted fact that the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.02.2014 decreed the suit filed by the present respondents. Against the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 19.02.2014, the present appellants preferred appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on 17.05.2016. The learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. vide its order dated 16.08.2018 dismissed the application filed by the present applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act holding that the appeal is barred by period of limitation and the sufficient cause has not been made out by the applicants/appellants in the said application and consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation was ordered to be rejected. The said order was passed by learned First Appellate Court on 16.08.2018. Thereafter, CMPMO No. 451 of 2019 was filed on 04.04.2019 and the same kept pending before this Court till 18.03.2024, on which date learned counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the said CMPMO No. 451 of 2019 and sought liberty to file RSA against the order as passed by the learned First Appellate Court. This Court gave the liberty to present appellant to file the RSA. Pursuant to that applicant/ appellant had filed the present RSA, on 31.05.2024. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Tyagi, learned vice counsel for the applicants that after excluding the period during which the CMPMO No. 451 of 2019 was pending before this Court, there is delay of 7 months 19 days in filing the present RSA. In order to substantiate his contention the appellant No.2 has filed supplementary affidavit and in view of the averments made in paras 2, 3 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that applicants have shown sufficient and plausible reason for condonation of delay, more so, in view of the fact that applicant No.2 is a labourer. Though prayer of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by the present non-applicants. However, keeping in view the fact that the applicants were pursuing their remedy by filing CMPMO No. 451 of 2019 which kept pending before this Court for about five years. Therefore, in the interest of the justice the delay in filing the present RSA is condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondents within a period of three weeks’ from today, positively, failing which the impugned order as passed by the learned First Appellate Court shall revive. Application stands disposed of. RSA No.____/2026 (RSAST No. 18139/24) Appeal be registered. Learned counsel for the appellants to supply the entire paper book to learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the day. List after four weeks. (Romesh Verma) Judge March 11, 2026 (Nisha)