Meenakshi Kapur vs. Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari CMP(M) No.456 of 2024 20.03.2026 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. CMP(M) No.456 of 2024 The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application that the impugned judgment was passed by Learned Additional District Judge (CBI), Shimla on 08.08.2019. Though, the intimation regarding the decision of first appeal was sent at the address of the applicant at Matiyana by counsel representing her before the Court below, but the said intimation could not be received by the applicant. Further, it has been stated that the applicant along with her husband Shri Rajiv Kapur shifted to Goa in the first week of August 2019, where their children were residing and working. Before leaving, the applicant visited the office of learned counsel at Shimla, who was not there and apprised the person present with respect to the factum of shifting to Goa and the change in address. Thereafter, the applicant remained busy in Goa in making preparations and solemnization of the marriage of niece of her husband in January 2020. 2. It is further averred that on account of national lock down due to spread of Corona Pandemic, the applicant remained stuck in Goa and during this period, the applicant contracted Covid infection and remained under medication for almost a month. Medical treatment record has also been appended with the application. It has further been submitted that the applicant was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Goa where she remained admitted for two days. Thereafter, she underwent tests and treatment in the Cardiology Department of the said hospital. It has been averred in the application that, on account of her ailments, she remained under medication for a considerable period. Thereafter, she developed complications as the vaccine she was administered did not suit her. Further, it has been averred that her husband who was already suffering from Ishemic Heart disease was diagnosed to be suffering from Leukemia (Blood Cancer) in September 2022 for which he remained hospitalized w.e.f. 10.09.2022 to 16.09.2022. The diagnosis and treatment record is also appended with the application. Since, the applicant did not receive intimation with respect to the decision of the case and the applicant along with her husband had shifted to Goa where she was under the constant medication, the decision as passed by the first appellate Court was not within her knowledge. 3. It has been averred in the application that the non- applicant has preferred execution petition in the Court of learned Civil Judge at Theog in May 2023 and the summons in the case were repeatedly sent at Matiyana, but the service was not effected as the applicant was not available at the given address for the last more than four years. Finally, the learned Executing Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 directed the service of the summons by way of affixation for 27.03.2024. The daughter of the applicant on 25.02.2024 came to Matiyana when she noticed the copy of summons affixed at the entrance of the house. Thereafter, inquiries were made from the applicant and her learned counsel and it was revealed for the first time that the appeal of the applicant was dismissed on 08.08.2019. Immediately, the applicant went to her counsel who had been representing her in the first appeal and then it transpired that the records of the case file had been weeded out. Thereafter, the power of attorney was executed by the applicant in favour her daughter and copies of record of civil suit, appeal and execution were applied for and the same were received on 21.03.2024. It has been averred in the application that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Even otherwise, since substantial land is involved in the present case, there was no occasion on the part of the applicant to have not filed the present regular second appeal. 4. On the previous date of hearing, the case was argued at length and it was observed that in the event the applicant pays a sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs, the application of the present applicant can be considered. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection to it and submits that in case the costs is paid by the applicant to the non-applicant, in that event he has instructions to say that the present application can be allowed and the appeal be registered and heard on merits. 5. Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the application and in view of no objection as imparted by learned counsel for the non-applicant, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be paid by the applicant on or before 27th April, 2026. Learned counsel for the non- applicant to supply the details of bank account of the non- applicant within one week. It is made clear that in case the costs is not paid to the non-applicant within the said period, the present application shall be deemed to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. RSA No._______ of 2026 Appeal be registered. List for admission on 27th April, 2026. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge March 20, 2026 (vt)