2025:HHC:24532 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.242 of 2019 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Krishan Chand … Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Name of respondent No.3 stands deleted. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “In view of the aforesaid submission it is most humbly prayed that Order dated 24.03.2017 Annexure P-5 may kindly be set-aside being illegal, untenable in the eyes of law so also Order dated 14.07.2005 and 13.10.2006 Annexure P-1 Colly may also kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.03.2017, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., Camp at Arki (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the order passed by the said Court on 30.09.2010, has been dismissed by the learned Court below. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24532 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition that the petitioner who is a Judgment Debtor, suffered certain orders passed by learned Executing Court in the execution petition preferred by the Decree Holder against the Judgment Debtor. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review against the same. This review petition was dismissed by learned Executing Court. The petitioner assailed the said order passed by learned Executing Court in the review petition by way of CMPMO No.73 of 2011 before this Court. Said CMPMO was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-3, which reads as under:- “The petitioners should have first approached the learned trial Court before coming to this Court. The petition is rejected with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the learned Executing Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs.” Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another review petition under Section 114 read with Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code before learned Executing Court by referring to the order passed by this Court on 16.03.2011, which has been dismissed in terms of the impugned order. 4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that the CMPMO No.73 of 2011 was disposed of by the Court on 16.03.2011, order passed wherein has already been quoted by me hereinabove. Thereafter, the second review petition was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by learned Executing Court on 24.03.2017. Present petition has been filed against the order passed 3 2025:HHC:24532 by learned Executing Court on 27.05.2019, meaning thereby that after more than two years as from the date of passing of the impugned order. There is no justification given in the petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by learned Executing Court so late. The reasons spelled out in Para-13 of the petition that the petitioner had gone out of State in connection with his livelihood etc. and that it was in the month of May, 2017 that he obtained certified copy of the order and thereafter, he approached he approached his counsel at Shimla in the month of June, 2018 to prepare the case and thereafter, he could not come to Shimla on account of his ill-health etc. and that he was a poor rustic villager, do not impress the Court. 5. There is indeed unexplained delay in the filing of this petition as the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Court against the impugned order as per his own convenience. 6. Though, this Court is aware that there is no limitation prescribed for approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, yet the party has to approach the Court within some reasonable time and if there is delay in approaching the Court, then reasons for delay have to be satisfactorily explained. 7. As I have already observed hereinabove, a perusal of the grounds of review petition demonstrates that the review was not being sought on the ground that there was some error apparent on the face of the record, but for the reasons which amount to attacking the orders on merit. The same is not permissible in review 4 2025:HHC:24532 jurisdiction, because a party can seek review only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Besides this, in terms of the provisions of the provisions of Order 47, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, reference whereof is also there in the impugned order, the review of review otherwise is not permitted in law. 8. Therefore, in the above backdrop, as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below, this petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (Rishi)