( 2025:HHC:3062 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1945 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.01.2025. State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners. Versus Pankajakshi Sharma ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral): This Review Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 6.8.2024, headed by the then Chief Justice, when the appeal was dismissed being time barred. The State has filed the present application, which is barred by 56 days. Thus, the State is consistent in its attitude. 2. The Coordinate Bench had referred to the relevant law, while dismissing the delay application by noting that the judgment dated 6.7.2023 had been received in the Department on 03.10.2023 and it was put up on 05.10.2023 and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ultimately, the appeal came to be filed on 04.05.2024. Resultantly, the delay of 256 days was not condoned. 3. The principles have already been laid down in Isha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, which read as under:- “21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public -3- mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. -4- xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” 4. In Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & others vs. Union of India & another, Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015 decided on 09.10.2023 has also referred to the law laid down in Isha Bhattacharjee’s case (supra), which was noticed in the impugned order, wherein it is mentioned that the State can be given some latitude but cannot be indolent as such and no serious lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non- challant manner which requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. 5. We do not find that there is any scope for review of the order as such, as the jurisdiction for review is limited. Resultantly, we allow the application for condonation of delay and dismiss the un-registered Review application. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th January, 2025 (kck)