RAJEEV PARMAR v. M/S SAINI CONCRETE WORKS AND ANOTHER
CMP.M/13/2025 · 2026-03-30
Romesh Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1418 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1418 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Rajeev Parmar vs .M/s Saini Concrete Works and another CMP(M) No.13 of 2025 30.03.2026 Present: Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Shashwat Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2.
CMP(M) No. 13 of 2025 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It has been averred in the application that after the passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the learned first appellate Court, counsel for the applicant did not inform him regarding the passing of judgment and decree. The applicant inquired the counsel in the month of December 2023 regarding his case status and found that the same has been decided on 11.10.2023. It has been averred that the applicant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 20.12.2023 and the same was received on
29.01.2024. Further, it has been averred that there was communication gap between the applicant and his counsel and the factum of the decision of the case was intimated to the applicant by the counsel and the certified copy was received on
29.01.2024. The applicant is a rustic villager and does not know the intricacies of law and consequently the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal. Mr. Shashwat Dadwal, Advocate, has vehemently opposed the application and submits that the delay in filing the appeal has not been explained. Therefore, the present application and the appeal deserve to be rejected
Keeping in view the averments as made in the application especially in view of the fact that the applicant is a rustic villager and shall not be going to gain anything by not filing the present regular appeal when the impugned judgment and decree is against him. In view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, and in view of
submissions as made by Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate, the present application is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents. It is made clear that in case the costs of Rs.10,000/- is not paid to the respondents, in that event, the application shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents to supply the bank details of the respondents, in which the present applicant is directed to deposit the amount of costs of Rs.10,000/- within four weeks from today. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. RSA No._______ of 2026 Appeal be registered. List for admission after four weeks. ( Romesh Verma )
Judge March 30, 2026 (vt)