IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 48 of 2021 Decided on: 11.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……….. petitioner Versus Tung Ram and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate, with M/s. Arjun K. Lall, Vivek Negi, Vinod Chauhan, Advocates, for the respective respondents. : Respondent No.42 is stated to have expired. : Respondents No. 48 & 49 stand deleted. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 1 SCC 436 titled as Shyam Sundar Sarma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and others, the present revision petition is not maintainable. Relevant extract whereof reads as under:- “10. The question was considered in extenso by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Thambi v. Mathew. Therein, after referring to the relevant decisions on the question it was held that an appeal presented out of time was nevertheless an appeal in the eye of the law for all purposes and an order a dismissing the appeal was a decree that could be the subject of a second appeal. It was also held that Rule 3-A of Order 41 introduced by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 to the Code, did not in any way affect that principle. An appeal registered under Rule 9 of Order 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 41 of the Code had to be disposed of according to law and a dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation, after the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay, is bin substance and effect a confirmation of the decree appealed against Thus, the position that emerges on a survey of the authorities is that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal.” 2. In view of above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks time to withdraw the revision petition with liberty reserved to take steps in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith all pending applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 11, 2025 tarun