Pritam Chand vs. Karam Singh CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025 15.7.2026 Present: Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent/non-applicant. CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025 Applicant Pritam Chand has filed the accompanying appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 24.5.2025, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2022, titled as, ‘Pritam Chand versus Karam Singh’. 2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 24.5.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, which has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and decree, dated 15.2.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2014, titled as, ‘Pritam Chand versus Karam Singh’. 3. The accompanying appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 99 days, whereas, as per the report of the Registry, delay is of 191 days. 4. Condonation of delay has mainly been sought on the ground that after passing the judgment by learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied on 12.9.2025 and the same was received on 15.9.2025. 5. According to the applicant, he is an illiterate person and not aware about the legal position about the limitation period, for setting aside the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 6. In nut-shell, delay has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground that he was not aware about the legal technicalities about filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation. As soon as the applicant came to know about the requirement of filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, he contacted his counsel. 7. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 8. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by non-applicant on the ground that the application is totally misconceived and not maintainable, as the applicant has miserably failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, which has been described in the reply as ‘inordinate delay’. 9. In addition to this, a prayer has been opposed on the ground that the case put forward by the applicant, does not fall within the definition ‘sufficient cause’. 10. Furthermore, the prayer, so made in the application, has also been opposed on the ground that delay appears to be intentional, deliberate, due to negligence and on account of lack of diligence. 11. The reply filed by the non-applicant is also supported by the affidavit of the non-applicant. 12. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. Heard. 14. The suit of the applicant was dismissed by the learned trial Court and he, unsuccessfully, assailed the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court by filing the appeal, before the learned First Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed. 15. Although, in the reply, it has been mentioned that there is lack of bonafide and negligence on the part of applicant, but the reply filed by the non-applicant is totally silent about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve in not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, on account of his legal illiteracy. 16. Even otherwise, while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court and the matter should be decided on merits, and not on the basis of technicalities. 17. Even for the negligence, the applicant is entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the application, as the application can be allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 5000/-. 18. Considering the aforesaid facts, the application under consideration is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the non- applicant. 19. The application is, thus, disposed of. RSA No. ________ 20. Vide order of even date, passed in CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025, delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be condoned. 21. Be registered. 22. The costs be tendered on or before the next date of hearing. List on 5.8.2026. (Virender Singh) Judge July 15, 2026 (kalpana)