IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.509 of 2025 Decided on 29th August, 2025 Rajinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yoginder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 20.03.2025, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner before the learned Divisional Commissioner to recall order dated 28.08.2018, in terms whereof, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of his eviction was dismissed in default stands dismissed. 2 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the reasons which were mentioned in the application have not been dealt with by the Authority at all in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the reason as to why the learned counsel could not appear before the Authority were bona fide reasons and there was no intent on the part of the applicant not to put in appearance before the Authority. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that otherwise also there was no occasion for the petitioner not to pursue the remedy, when it was he, who had filed the revision petition. Accordingly, he has prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the reasons which are spelled out in the application are not valid reasons to condone delay of more than 6 years. He further submitted that it is a case of encroachment and it cannot be expected that the petitioner did not inquire about the fate of the case from 2018 onwards and story narrated in the 3 application was just a concocted version to justify the unjustifiable delay. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the impugned order. 6. As it is a matter of record that the application for recalling the order, in terms whereof, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte was filed after 6 years, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, in terms whereof, the said application has been dismissed. This Court cannot accept that the petitioner, if he was diligent, did not come to know about the dismissal of his case, which was dismissed in default on 28.08.2018. The story mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner is also not convincing for the reason that the lawyer engaged or the subsequent lawyer engaged, obviously, would have had inquired about the fate of the case and, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing his right, the dismissal of his application cannot be faulted with. 4 7. However, in the interest of justice to enable the petitioner to espouse his cause on merit before the Divisional Authority, this Court is showing interference with the direction that in the event of the petitioner depositing cost of Rs.25,000/- with the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund in Bank Account No.42088576875 (IFSC Code SBIN0050204) Branch Chhota Shimla (East) H.P., by 30.09.2025, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner shall be deemed to have been set aside and the order of dismissal in default shall stand recalled. However, if said amount is not deposited on or before 30.09.2025, then, this order will loose its efficacy and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner shall become enforceable. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (Vinod)