IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP No.18748 of 2025 in CWP No.8949 of 2022 Decided on 06th August, 2025 Shashi Bhushan Nagpal …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, vice Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application, a prayer has been made qua recalling order dated 20.05.2025, in terms whereof, the petition was dismissed in default. 2. In terms of the averments made in the application as the mother and mother-in-law of the counsel were admitted in Hospital, therefore, he could not attend the case. It is further averred in the application that in the month of June, 2025 he had 2 gone abroad and due to these counts the non-appearance is stated to be not intentional. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. He has drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 17.07.2023, in terms whereof, Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the petition in default. He also drew to the attention of the Court to the application that was filed on behalf of the petitioner for the recall of the said order, i.e. CMP No.15629 of 2023 and by referring to Para-2 thereof; he stated that same reasons were cited by the petitioner for his non-appearance, i.e. ill health of his mother etc. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the application as well as the order that has been passed in these proceedings earlier also by the Court. 5. It is a matter of record that earlier also the petition was dismissed in default by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 17.07.2023. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall this order i.e., CMP No.15629 of 2023. This application was allowed by this Court on 06.12.2023 3 in the following terms:- “By way of this application, a prayer has been made for re-calling order dated 17.07.2023, in terms whereof, the petition was dismissed for non appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It stands submitted in the application that the reason as to why the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not put in appearance before the Court was that the mother of the learned counsel was admitted in the hospital on account of ill health. There is no serious objection on behalf of the non-applicant to the prayer made in the application. In this view of the matter as the Court is satisfied that non- appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 17.07.2023 when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution was bona fide, accordingly, this application is allowed by re-calling order dated 17.07.2023. Registry is directed to restore the petition in its original number. The application stands disposed of.” 6. Thus, it is evident from the order passed by this Court referred to hereinabove that what weighed with the Court was the reasons spelled out in the application that the petitioner could not put in appearance before the Court as his mother was admitted in Hospital on account of ill health. 7. Now, incidentally, in the present application that has been filed for recalling of order dated 20.05.2025, again same story has been narrated. It is mentioned in Para-3 of the application that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear as 4 his mother and mother in law were admitted in Hospital on account of ill health and old age and therefore, the counsel was busy and he could not inform the assisting counsel at Shimla. Now, incidentally, besides G.S. Sawhney and Geeta Sharma, has also filed their Power of Attorney. There is nothing mentioned in the application as to why said counsel could not appear before the Court on the date when the case was second time dismissed in default. Further, nothing has been appended with the application to demonstrate that indeed the mother and mother in law of the learned counsel were admitted in any Hospital. Not only this, whereas, the case was dismissed in default on 20.05.2025, the application for recall has been filed in the month of July, 2025 and the reason mentioned therein is that in the month of June, 2025, learned counsel had gone abroad to attend some family function. The Court is not impressed with the reasons mentioned in the application. 8. As already observed hereinabove, no record has been appended with the application to demonstrate that the mother and mother in law of petitioner were indeed admitted in the Hospital as alleged. There is no mention in the application 5 that in case the mother and mother in law of the petitioner were admitted in a Hospital then from what date to what date. As observed hereinabove also, earlier also when the petition was dismissed in default earlier, similar grounds were pleaded by the learned counsel, which at the relevant time were accepted by the Court. But now, this Court finds no reason to accept the said bald contention of the learned counsel which is not substantiated by any evidence. Further, as the petitioner was being represented by other counsel also and there is no valid reason given therein as to why the other counsel could not put in appearance before the Court, accordingly, the application is dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 06, 2025 (Vinod)