IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.314 of 2015 Decided on 04th September, 2025 Chander Kala …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar Saini, Advocate, vice Mr. B.r. Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.07.2009 passed by Tehsildar, Shillai and the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poanta Sahib, may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 2 2. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order that has been passed by the Revisional Authority, dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P-6). He submitted that there is a grave perversity which renders this order bad in the eyes of law and the same is that not only the Revisional Authority rejected the application by the petitioner filed under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the Revision, it also thereafter touched the merit and order adverse to the interest of the petitioner on both courts has been passed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is settled law that in case the authority is rejecting an application praying for condonation of delay, then, it is not supposed to touch the merit of this case. This cardinal principle has been violated by the authority while passing the impugned order. He submits that in these circumstances, interest of justice would be served in case this petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the authority with an observation that let the Revision afresh. 3. Though, the prayer is opposed to by the learned counsel for the private respondent, but this Court is of the considered view that as the impugned order indeed is bad for the 3 reason that the authority while rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act touched the merit of the case, interest of justice would be served in case the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority for adjudication afresh on merit. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General assures the Court that the authority will do the needful as expeditiously as possible. 5. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed without any observation on the merit of the case inter se, by setting aside order dated 20.12.2011 and by directing that let the Revision/Appeal which has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 21.07.2009 be decided on merit by treating it as filed within limitation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the basis of the pleadings already on record. Needful positively be done before 30.09.2025. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 04, 2025 (Vinod)