2025:HHC:26549 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1394 of 2023 Decided on: 06.08.2025 State of H.P. & others ...Applicants, Versus Gurdas Kumar & others ...Non-applicants/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the applicants: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the non-applicants/ respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel and Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. This application has been filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition against the judgment dated 13th August, 2021, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.978 of 2019. 3. The delay is stated to be of 745 days. 4. It is averred in the application that the copy of judgment dated 13th August, 2021 was made available in the office of Engineer-in-Chief, H.P. PWD on 9th September, 2021, that too, through the representation of non- applicants/respondents. Thereafter, the case of the non- 2 2025:HHC:26549 applicants/respondents was examined and disposed of vide order dated 13th December, 2021. The non-applicants having remained dissatisfied had approached this Court by way of COPC No.101 of 2022, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2022. The non-applicants, thereafter filed Execution Petition No.30 of 2023. The applicants contested the execution petition by filing reply through Superintending Engineer, H.P.PWD, Mechanical Circle, Kullu. During the proceedings of the execution petition, the matter was submitted to Government on 3rd July, 2023 for obtaining advice, which further was referred to the office of learned Advocate General. Finally, on 20.09.2023 advice was rendered to file review petition. 5. This application was filed on 28.09.2023. 6. The non-applicants are contesting the application and they have filed their reply denying the averments made in the application. 7. At the outset, learned State counsel Ms. Seema Sharma has placed reliance on the judgment dated 21st March, 2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, titled Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 600 to urge that the merits of the principal claim should be kept in mind as a 3 2025:HHC:26549 major aspect while adjudicating upon application/petition for condonation of delay. 8. On the strength of aforesaid precedent, learned State counsel would submit that this Court while passing the judgment dated 13th August, 2021 in CWPOA No.978 of 2019 had not taken into consideration the relevant clause of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and instead had proceeded to decide the matter on Rule 7 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which did not deal with the category of non-applicants/respondents herein. 9. The applicants in the instant case are seeking condonation of delay in filing Review Petition. To urge that this Court should take into consideration the merit of ground of Review or in order to bring their case within the ambit of judgment cited above, the applicants have to justify the existence of necessary facts. The applicants have to show prima facie merit of the ground(s) on which they intend to seek review of the judgment. 10. I have not found anything on record which may suggest that the applicants had taken such a ground before the Court before or at the time of adjudication of CWPOA No.978 of 2019 as is sought to be raised now as a ground for review. Neither the relevant pleadings have been placed on record nor it 4 2025:HHC:26549 is inferable from the judgment itself that such a ground was raised before the Court. That being so, the ground of review as sought to be raised by the applicants prima facie appears to be without merit. In my considered view, even for taking into consideration the merit of plea of review petitioner, the ground for review should be made out. The matter, which was not agitated at the time of initial disposal of the matter, cannot be agitated by way of review. 11. Even otherwise, in the judgment in Inder Singh (supra) Hon’ble supreme Court has observed as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 12. In the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court the Hon’ble High Court had condoned the delay and had permitted the State to assail the judgment in Regular Second Appeal. In that case, the immovable property i.e. the land of the State was involved and thus in my considered view, the applicants herein cannot be granted any benefit of aforesaid judgment. 13. From the averments made in the application, as noticed above, no cause much less sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants that prevented them from filing the Review Petition within time. The only reason is that the 5 2025:HHC:26549 Department of H.P. PWD sought advice of the State Government on 15th July, 2023, which further sought the advice of learned Advocate General and it was on his advice that the instant application along with review petition was filed. What prevented the applicants from seeking the advice, if so required, at earlier occasion has not been explained. Evidently, the applicants had not been diligent and hence, they cannot take benefit of their remissness. 14. By omitting to seek remedy within period of limitation the party allows creation of vested rights in favour of the others, which cannot be taken away lightly. 15. For seeking condonation of delay, one has to satisfy the Court not only as to the reasons which prevented the filing of the petition within time, but as to its bonafide also. 16. In the instant case, I do not find any sufficient cause which prevented the applicants from filing the review petition within the time prescribed by law or within a reasonable time. The delay also does not appear to be for bonafide reason. 17. In result, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 6th August, 2025 (vt)