2025:HHC:25930 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 444 of 2025 Decided on : 04.08.2025 Ludder Singh (Deceased), through his L.Rs. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : M/s Rupesh Kumar and Parav Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat in CMA No. 234/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 45/2022 titled ‘State Vs. Ludder Singh’ filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act may kindly be quashed and set aside and the CMA no. 234/2021 may kindly be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25930 2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by the respondent, praying for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, dated 03.05.2018, was condoned. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that this petition itself has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of condoning the delay, more than 2 ½ years after the passing of the order by the learned Appellate Court. 4. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted and called upon to explain the conduct of the petitioner he submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the original plaintiff and he recently died in the year 2024 and when the petitioners were impleaded as a party in the proceedings in their capacity as legal representatives, they realized that grave injustice had been done to them by the learned Appellate Court, while condoning the delay. 5. This Court is not convinced with the argument so 3 2025:HHC:25930 made by the learned counsel. It is a matter of record that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was alive when the delay was condoned by the learned Appellate Court and he accepted the said verdict. Thereafter, the matter apparently is pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Court. Now, after 2 ½ years, the petitioners cannot be allowed to rake up an order passed by the learned Appellate Court as far back as on 30.11.2022. Not only this, this Court is surprised at the audacity with which the petitioners have approached this Court assailing the order passed by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that it condoned the delay in filing the Appeal in a callous manner without being able to justify as to how the petitioners defend their conduct of approaching the Court against the impugned order, after more than 2 ½ years. 6. Therefore, as this Court is convinced that this petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/-, to be deposited by the petitioners in the Himachal Pradesh Apada Rahat Kosh, having HDFC Bank Account No. 50100663774303 and IFSC Code- HDFC0004116, within a period of two weeks from today. 4 2025:HHC:25930 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 04, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)