2025:HHC:46564 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1639 of 2025 & CMP No. 22328 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.6.2026 Budhu @ Budhi Ram through LRs. …Applicants/Appellants. Versus Joginder Singh and others. …Non-applicants/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants. Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 already ex parte. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) CMP (M) No. 1639 of 2025 and CMP No. 22328 of 2025 Heard. 2. Considering the pleadings of the parties including personal affidavit filed by the Advocate representing the applicants as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, whereby learned counsel for the applicants has advocated for condonation of delay in peculiar facts and circumstances whereas learned counsel for contesting 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:46564 CMP (M) No. 1639 of 2025 & CMP No. 22328 of 2025 respondents has opposed the same on the ground that day to day delay, as required to be explained under law, has not been explained and further that COVID period has no impact for causing delay in filing the application for restoration of application for condonation of delay filed by the applicants alongwith proposed appeal, which was dismissed in the year 2017 and further that applicants cannot be allowed to get benefits for negligence on their part. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the applicant, but it was an inadvertent mistake of the Advocate representing the applicants, who could not appear in the matter, as he or his Office staff failed to notice the listing of application in the Court. It has been further submitted that not only counsel for the applicants, but counsel representing contesting respondents was also not present at the time of dismissal of application filed by the applicants, which indicates that case had appeared suddenly in the cause list and thus failure to notice the case does not amount to negligence, but an accidental slip on the part of Advocate, for which applicants should not be made to suffer. 4. After considering rival contention of parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is a ground for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of application filed for condonation of delay by the applicants alongwith proposed appeal. 5. Accordingly, application (CMP (M) No. 1639 of 2025) filed for condonation of delay in filing application (CMP No. 22328 of 2025) for 3 2025:HHC:46564 CMP (M) No. 1639 of 2025 & CMP No. 22328 of 2025 restoration of application (CMP (M) No. 680 of 2016) filed for condonation of delay in filing proposed appeal as well as application (CMP No. 22328 of 2025) filed for restoration of CMP (M) No.680 of 2016 alongwith proposed appeal are allowed and CMP (M) No. 680 of 2016 alongwith proposed appeal and proposed application, if any, is ordered to be restored to its original number and position as was existing on the date of dismissal. The applications are allowed and disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 19th June, 2026 Judge. (Keshav)