IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 1107 of 2024 Decided on: 25.6.2026 ____________________________________________________ Bhupender Singh ……….. applicant-appellant Versus Desh Raj ……….non-applicant/respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the applicant : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Adv ocate. For the respondent : Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 2. The Judgment and decree in the case at hand was passed by the 1st Appellate Court on 8.8.2023. Appeal thereof should have been preferred within 90 days. The present appeal has been preferred after a delay of 343 days. The reason cited in the application seeking condonation of delay being that the applicant became aware of the judgment dated 8.8.2023 in the second week of June, 2024, thereafter, he immediately applied for a copy and filed the present appeal. 3. Before the appeal court regular and periodical dates of hearing are fixed. The process is called ‘adjournment of hearing. A party or his counsel is expected to appear on those 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dates and keep track of the case. If a litigant does not keep track of his case than ‘want of diligence’ or ‘inaction’ can be attributed to such a litigant. With respect to the aspect of ‘want of diligence’ or inaction attributed to the applicant in the case at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321 : 14. Let us next also refer to some of the special factors which have a bearing on what constitutes sufficient cause, with reference to delay in applications for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record. 15. The first is whether the appeal is pending in a court where regular and periodical dates of hearing are fixed. There is a significant difference between an appeal pending in a subordinate court and an appeal pending in a High Court. In lower courts, dates of hearing are periodically fixed and a party or his counsel is expected to appear on those dates and keep track of the case. The process is known as “adjournment of hearing”. In what cases can Want of ‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ be attributed to an applicant it would be appropriate to refer to Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao, (2009) 11 SCC 183 : In what cases can Want of ‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ be attributed to an applicant it would be appropriate to refer to Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao, (2009) 11 SCC 183: “Want of ‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent.” 3 4. In the case at hand, it is evident that there is a complete want of diligence on the part of the application in keeping track for his case before the 1st Appellate court. 5. The length of delay is immaterial. The condonation of delay is a discretionary power. Exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of cause shown and the degree   of its acceptability thereof. The expression “sufficient cause” is to be duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part (Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81). 6. The Court must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment reported as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India and Another, 2023 (10) SCC 531. The relevant extract of the same are as under: “…...Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. 4 32. An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.” 7. In the case at hand, their exists no proper explanation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal rather to the contrary what has been pointed out is an excuse. 8. In view thereof, delay of 343 days in the filling the appeal is not condoned, therefore, the present application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge June 25th, 2025 tarun