IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.480 of 2018 Decided on 03rd September, 2025 Hans Raj …Petitioner Versus Karam Chand and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Manisha Thampta, Advocate, for respondent No.1(a) to 1(f). Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) No.1589 & 1590 of 2025 Issue notice. Ms. Manisha Thampta, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1(a) to 1(f). 2. By way of these two applications, a prayer has been made to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 as well as for condonation of delay in filing the application. 3. No reply is intended to be filed to the applications. 2 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the applications, the same are allowed, as prayed for. The proposed legal representatives of deceased respondents No.1 are impleaded as petitioner No.1(a) and 1(f). Delay in filing the application is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside. Applications stand disposed of CMPMO No.480 of 2018 5. Ms. Manisha Thampta, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents. 6. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 25.08.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the present petitioner alongwith the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3 8. It is a matter of record that the appeal was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court after two years. The reason that was mentioned in the application praying for the condonation of delay was that the factum of the decision of the case was not conveyed to the petitioner by the learned counsel. However, save and except, this bald contention nothing is there on record to substantiate this fact that the judgment was not in the knowledge of the present petitioner. Otherwise also, it was a lis between real brothers and, therefore also, it is difficult to believe the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware about the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, which was intended to be assailed after two years. 9. The purpose of the law of limitation is that because the orders and the judgments have to attain finality, it is for this reason that a time limit has been fixed for an aggrieved party to assail the judgments or orders. In case, the judgments or orders are not assailed within the period of limitation, then, remedy to assail goes. In these circumstances, in case, a party approaches the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation and prays for 4 condonation of delay, then, until and unless the judicial conscious of the Court is satisfied that, but for bona fide reasons, the party could not approach the Court within the period of limitation, ordinarily the Courts do not condone the delay. 10. In the present case, as is evident from the order passed by the learned Court below, no cogent reasons were put forth by the petitioner so as to convince the judicial conscience of the Court that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and not intentional. 11. Not only this, the delay of more than two years is a substantive delay and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not residing in his village or there was some other reason on account whereof it was not possible for him to have had gained the knowledge of the adjudication of the matter. It is reiterated that the contention that he was not informed about the decision by his counsel has not been substantiated by placing any cogent material on record. 12. Further, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to interfere with orders passed by the learned Courts below until and unless there 5 is perversity writ large. This Court is not to act as an Appellate Court and as it is settled law that if the view taken by the learned Trial Court is one of the view possible on the basis of the facts before it, then, this Court need not interfere. 13. In the light of the fact that the view taken by the learned Court below obviously is one of the cogent view which could have been arrived at in the light of the facts before it, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Vinod)