LAC and another vs. Rajmal and others CMP(M) No. 1098 of 2024 10.07.2025 Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants/State. Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3, 7, 8 and 10. Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate, for proposed LRs of deceased respondents No.4, 5, 6 and 9. CMP(M) Nos. 228 and 229 of 2025 No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non- applicants. Legal heirs stand served, they are duly represented by a counsel and power of attorney stands filed on their behalf. From a perusal of the death certificate appended alongwith the present application, it is evident that respondent No.4 had died on 5.12.2018. In terms of the legal heirs certificate appended alongwith the application, it is evident that right to sue survives in the said legal representatives, details whereof have been given in para 3 in CMP(M) No. 228 of 2025, which is in consonance with the legal heirs certificate. For the sufficient cause shown in CMP(M) No.229 of 2025, delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4, is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Other than the aforesaid, for the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 4(a) to 4(c). The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) Nos. 230 and 231 of 2025 No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non- applicants. Legal heirs stand served, they are duly represented by a counsel and power of attorney stands filed on their behalf. From a perusal of the death certificate appended alongwith the present application, it is evident that respondent No.5 had died on 11.07.2024. In terms of the legal heirs certificate appended alongwith the application, it is evident that right to sue survives in the said legal representatives, details whereof have been given in para 3 in CMP(M) No. 230 of 2025, which is in consonance with the legal heirs certificate. For the sufficient cause shown in CMP(M) No.231 of 2025, delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.5, is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Other than the aforesaid, for the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.5 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c). The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) Nos. 232 and 233 of 2025 No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non- applicants. Legal heirs stand served, they are duly represented by a counsel and power of attorney stands filed on their behalf. From a perusal of the death certificate appended alongwith the present application, it is evident that respondent No.6 had died on 27.12.2022. In terms of the legal heirs certificate appended alongwith the application, it is evident that right to sue survives in the said legal representatives, details whereof have been given in para 3 in CMP No. 232 of 2025, which is in consonance with the legal heirs certificate. For the sufficient cause shown in CMP(M) No.233 of 2025, delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.6, is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Other than the aforesaid, for the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.6 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 6(a) to 6(c). The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) No. 343 and 344 of 2025 No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non- applicants. Legal heirs stand served, they are duly represented by a counsel and power of attorney stands filed on their behalf. From a perusal of the death certificate appended alongwith the present application, it is evident that respondent No.9 had died on 12.12.2018. In terms of the legal heirs certificate appended alongwith the application, it is evident that right to sue survives in the said legal representatives, details whereof have been given in para 3 in CMP No. 343 of 2025, which is in consonance with the legal heirs certificate. For the sufficient cause shown in CMP(M) No.344 of 2025, delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.9, is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Other than the aforesaid, for the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.9 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 9(a) to 9(c). Amended memo incorporating the aforesaid additions made on account of the aforesaid respondents be filed within two weeks. The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) No. 1098 of 2024 Heard counsel for the applicant. Perused the pleadings. In the filing of the present petition, there is a delay of about 58 days. The same has been duly explained in the application filed for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay filed by the State, one has to be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, impersonal nature of the Government functioning, institutional interest and hence a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken while dealing with such applications. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Manipur and others vs. Koting Lamkang, 2019 (10) SCC 408. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:- “7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. 8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected”. Other than the aforesaid, it would also be appropriate to refer to judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 titled Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Union of India and another. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:-. “37. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the first respondent’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” Hence, for the reasons/sufficient cause stated/shown in the application & the aforesaid proposition of law, delay of 58 days in filing the present petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. RFA No. _____ of 2025 Be registered. Admit. Record be called for. CMP No.______ of 2025 Be registered. The operation and execution of impugned judgment dated 9.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur is stayed subject to deposit of entire awarded amount within eight weeks from today. The application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 10th July 2025 Tarun