IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.14 of 2025 Decided on 12th September, 2025 Naresh Rana and another …Petitioners Versus Smt. Jamna Devi …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Court below, in terms whereof, learned Court has allowed an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the other documents appended with the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. The order in the complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act is dated 27.04.2023. The order was 2 passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. This order was assailed by way of an appeal alongwith an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the ready reference, para-2 of the application is being quoted hereinbelow:- “That the appellant/applicant had only requested the lower Court to provide the custody of the minor son and interim maintenance as per the voluntarily statement and order passed by the Ld. Chief judicial Magistrate Mandi, Distt Mandi H.P. in the case file dated 28-2-2022 was being enforced to be paid by the ld. judicial Magistrate Ist Class court No III, Mandi H.P. upto the month of Sept. 2023 and when the appellant/ applicant has asked the Hon'ble Court on dated 13-5-2024 that the respondent No. 1 has not paid the arrears of maintenance for such a long period and the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No III Mandi H.P. has asked the respondent No. 1 to make the payment of interim maintenance, then the counsel of the respondents have shown the impugned order Dated 27-4-2023 and the appellant/ applicant as well as Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Curt No. III, Mandi H.P. remained amazed and the appellant/applicant apprised the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Court No III, Mandi H.P. that it is due to over sightedness and clerical mistake, as there is not even a single words about the interim maintenance, rather it speaks about the finality of the case and the lower court below has felt its inability to change its own wife wrongful order and hence this application is well within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.” 4. In terms of this para of the application, the applicant had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi, for the 3 custody of the minor son and interim maintenance. According to her, she had been paid the interim maintenance as was directed by the said Court, upto the month of September, 2023. Thereafter, when the applicant informed the Court on 13.05.2024 that respondent No.1 had not paid the arrears of maintenance, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.-III asked the respondent to make the payment of interim maintenance. Then the counsel of respondent showed the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 and the applicant as well as the judge concerned were amazed and the applicant apprised the judge that probably it was due to over sightedness clerical mistake as there was not even a single word about interim maintenance in the said order and rather the order spoke about the finality of the case. Because learned Court below expressed its inability to change its own wrong order, therefore, the appeal was being filed alongwith the application for limitation. 5. The contents of these paras were specifically denied in the reply, however, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. 4 6. Learned Court has not appreciated that the applicant did not approach the Court with clean hands and the averments made in the application were totally incorrect. 7. This Court fails to understand as to where was the occasion for the learned Court below to be surprised alongwith the applicant as was mentioned in the application, when the impugned order was purportedly shown by the counsel to the applicant and the learned Judge. All this demonstrates that the facts mentioned in the application were concocted, to justify the delay and the learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating this extremely important aspect of the matter that no one can be allowed to approach the Court with in clean hands. 8. The issue is not as to whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned or not, but the least that is expected from a litigant is that it should approach the Court with clean hands. 9. It is the duty of learned Court to examine this aspect of the matter for the reason that with the expiry of limitation a right stands accrued upon the other party and this statutory right cannot be interfered with while exercising the power to condone 5 the delay until and unless the judicial conscience of the Court is satisfied that the delay was bona fide. 10. All this has not been appreciated by the learned Court in the facts of the averments made in the application and, therefore, the impugned order is bad. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 07.12.2024 is set aside but with the direction that the matter stands remanded back to the learned Appellate Court which shall rehear the application filed for condonation of delay and pass appropriate order thereupon in the light of the averments made in the application as well as the reply. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 12, 2025 (Vinod)