IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 415 of 2025 Decided on: 24.09.2025 Shri Vineet Bembey … Petitioner Versus Shri Rakesh Rahul and another .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Mr. Balwant Kukreja, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and after setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2025, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (CBI-Court) Shimla, the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court No.1, Shimla, dated 06.12.2019 may kindly be restored, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. A detailed order was passed by this Court in this case on 28.07.2025, which is being quoted herein below for ready reference:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Court learned Additional District Judge (C.B.I. Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Appeal R.B.T. No.13-S/2024/23, titled Shri Rakesh Rahul & another Versus Shri Vineet Bembey, decided on 13.05.2025, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court against an order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, dated 06.12.2019, in terms whereof, the plaint alongwith annexed documents was ordered to be returned by the appellants therein, was set aside. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that the respondent/ defendant filed a suit for possession and for decree of specific performance of agreement, dated 06.07.2003 and for decree of damages, which was partly allowed by learned Trial Court in terms of judgment dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court demonstrates that though it allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, but it set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court by holding that learned Civil Judge, Senior Division was not having any pecuniary jurisdiction and directed the learned Trial Court to decide the matter in terms of Notification dated 03.10.2013. 3 Thereafter, vide order dated 06.12.2019 (Annexure P- 3), learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 passed the following order:- “Office report seen It be registered. The present case has been remanded back to this Court by the learned first appellate authority vide its order dated 23.11.2019 vide which they have given finding that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present case. In view of the said findings, plaint alongwith its documents is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff with the direction to file the same before the appropriate authority. Photocopies of the documents be retained for record. Record of this Court after due completion be consigned to record room”. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached this Court by way of CMPMO No.422 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court on 01.09.2023 (Annexure P-4) in the following terms:- “Heard for some time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition. 3. Accepting, his prayer, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.” Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against order 4 dated 06.12.2019 before the learned Appellate Court which has been allowed in terms of impugned, order dated 13.05.2024. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by learned Appellate Court is perverse and not maintainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that the appeal preferred before it was not maintainable as the same was filed after a lapse of four years and that too, without filing an application under Section 5 of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Para- 13 of the order passed by learned Appellate Court and submitted that the reasons that have been given by learned Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the appeal was not time barred are not sustainable, because the minimum that was required was that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been filed, explaining why the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order is bad. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the order passed by the Appellate Authority, though this Court does not concurs with the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel that the order passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be 5 set aside, as the appeal was not accompanying an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the peculiar facts of this case. This is for the reason that the respondents did approach the Appellate Fora within a month as from the date when liberty was granted by this Court and even if the appeal was accompanied by application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ordinarily and obviously, the result thereof would have been that the application would have been allowed, because the respondents in deed were bonafidely pursuing their remedy before this Court. However, this Court feels that it would have been in the interest of justice in case learned Appellate Court would have had compensated the petitioner because the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as far as pursuing litigations are concerned for the omissions of the respondents, may be bonafide omissions. Therefore, though this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the impugned order and to said extent the Court is not intending to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court and rejects the petition against the same, however, notice is being issued for the limited purpose, as to why the petitioner should not be reasonably monetarily compensated. For this limited purpose, let notice be issued for 24.09.2025, on steps being taken within one week. It is clarified that as far as the main order passed by the 6 Appellate Authority is concerned, the petition is dismissed.” 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served, in case, the petitioner is compensated by the respondents by paying cost to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The cost be paid by the respondents by way of bank draft drawn in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 24, 2025 (narender)