( 2025:HHC:2624 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1902 of 2024 & LPA No. 31 of 2025. Date of Decision : 9 th January, 2025. Reserve Bank of India .… Applicant/Appellant. Versus Mohan Singh Guleria & others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Hemant Thakur and Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1902of 2024. The appeal is barred by 64 days. Keeping in view the fact that review petition had been filed by the applicant/appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2 ( 2025:HHC:2624 ) Accordingly, the delay application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 31 of 2025. 2. Primary issue under challenge in this appeal is the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant by the learned Single Judge which is to be paid by the appellant to respondent No.1. The reason for imposing the cost on the appellant was that the appellant chose not to enter appearance and had given necessary instructions that it would appear at the latter stage before the Court for providing necessary assistance. 3. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge made strong observations that how the appellant as such could not appear before the Court and provide any assistance. Nothing has been argued on merits that what was the basis for reflecting the name of the petitioner as “fraudulent” on its XBRL portal. Since, apparently, it was the categoric case of the petitioner that the dispute between the loanee bank and the borrower was civil in nature and there was no criminality attached to it, therefore putting forth the picture that it was a fraudulent transaction and the account was shown as such, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. 3 ( 2025:HHC:2624 ) 4. In such circumstances, we do not find any tenable reason as such to interfere in the order as the appellant bank on its own chose not to put in appearance and later cost was imposed upon it. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 9th January, 2025. (jai)