Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:11801 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1158 of 2023 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 State of H.P. & Ors. Applicants/appellants. Versus Prem Lal & Ors. Non applicants/respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the the applicants/appellants: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General For the non-applicants/ Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, Advocate 4._ ________________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi , Judge (oral) The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of nine months and 12 days in filing the present appeal. “On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 27.05.2024 and thereafter evidence was led on 27.11.2024 and on that date statement of one witness namely Jagat Ram (AW-1), Assistant Engineer, Namhol, Sub Division, Bilaspur was recorded, wherein he had deposed in favour of the applicant. No other evidence was led on behalf of applicant-respondent. In the case at hand, land of the respondent had been used for construction of road without acquisition of the same. In the aforesaid back-drop, the suit for mandatory injunction had been filed by the present 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent and the same had been partly decreed by grant of decree for possession in favour of present respondent. Aggrieved thereof, appeal has been preferred before the First Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed. It is in the aforesaid back ground that present appeal along with the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed on record judgment dated 21.12.2024, titled as State of H.P. and others vs Lekh Ram and others, passed in CMP.M No.1180 of 2023. In the said case also, land of the respondents had been used for construction of the road in question. The road has been constructed without acquisition by the competent authorities. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed. The appeal preferred thereof by the State before the learned appellate Court had also been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a Regular Second Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay had been filed. For seeking permission to file an appeal in the said case the file had been simultaneously dealt with the present case at hand. From narration of facts and evidence led in CMP(M) No. 1180 of 2023, it is evident that there was delay of 10 months and 2 days which had occurred in preferring the Regular Second Appeal. The reasons stated therein were exactly the same as have been cited in the case at hand. The evidence led is also exactly the same. There in also Jagat Ram Assistant Engineer Namhol Sub Division H.P.PWD Namhol had appeared to depose on behalf of the applicants,. After 3 considering the same the application for condonation of delay therein was dismissed. Since the case in hand was dealt simultaneously with the file which pertained to CMP (M) No.1180 of 2023 therefore for the reasons stated therein for not condoning the delay, the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned. Application stands dismissed. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge April 30, 2025 (veena)