IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1244 of 2022 Date of Decision: 08th August, 2025 Shinakshi and Ors. .....Applicants/Appellants Versus Soma Devi and Ors. ….non-Applicants/respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocate, vice Mr. Bharat Thakur, advocate, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 6. Name of respondent No.3 stands deleted. None for respondent No.7. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 3 years 11 months and 16 days in filing the appeal. 2. A detailed reply and rejoinder thereto were filed. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed on 12.10.2023. The issues framed are as follows:- “1. Whether there is sufficient reason for condonation of delay.?. OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR.” 3. Subsequent thereto, due opportunity was afforded to the present applicants to lead evidence but no evidence was led by the applicants. In the aforesaid facts and attending 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 circumstances, it is contended by the applicants that their application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit, be treated as their evidence. The aforesaid argument needs to be rejected for the following reasons:- i. The word evidence has been defined in the Evidence Act and reads as follows:- “Evidence”. ––“Evidence” means and includes –– (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;] such documents are called documentary evidence.” The expression affidavit is not included in the definition of the word “evidence” in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. ii. Other than the aforesaid, in terms of Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, an affidavit can only be read as evidence, if for sufficient reason the Court passes an order under the aforesaid order. In this respect, reference can be made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 1988 (3) SCC 366, titled Sudha Devi Vs. M.R Narayanan and Ors. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the application is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 08th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)