Vipan Kumar vs. Rakesh & Ors. CMP(M) No.450 of 2024 03.01.2025 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.2 to 4/State. Applicant Vipan Kumar has preferred the accompanying Regular Second Appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.20-B/XIII/14, titled as, ‘State of H.P. and others versus Rakesh Kumar and another’. 2. The appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed, which was preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 04.08.2014, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 1/13, titled as ‘Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others’. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2014, learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit of respondent No.1-Rakesh Kumar, by granting the following relief:- “In view of my discussion made on all issues, especially issues No.1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and the relief of declaration is granted in favour of the plaintiff whereby the order dated 08.06.2012 vide which the post of Jalrakshak in Nanahar panchayat was given to defendant No.4 has been struck down being unfair, void, abinitio and against the selection procedure, whereas, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that plaintiff being rightful claimant to the post, is declined as the defect in the selection process has hit it at the roots and has been declared illegal, null and void for all intents and purposes. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared and file after completion be consigned to record room”. 4. Since, the accompanying appeal has been filed, after prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been preferred for condonation of delay. As per report of Registry, there is delay of two years and one month in filing the present appeal. 5. When, put to notice, the respondent No.1 has not opted to put appearance to contest the application, whereas, the proforma respondents have filed the reply by controverting the allegation as levelled in the application. 6. Considering the peculiar fact that the proforma respondents, who contesting this application, were also appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, as they had preferred Civil Appeal No.20-B/XIII/14, titled as, ‘State of H.P. and others versus Rakesh Kumar and another’, they have no locus to contest the present application. 7. In view of the averments, which are duly supported by the affidavit and the fact that respondent No.1 has not bothered to put appearance and to controvert those allegations, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. RSA No……..of 2025 8. Vide order of even date, passed in CMP(M) No. 450 of 2024, delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be condoned. 9. Be registered. 10. Let notice to the appeal be issued to respondent No.1, returnable with eight weeks, on taking steps within seven days. List thereafter. (Virender Singh) Judge January 03, 2025 (subhash)