2025:HHC:43922 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2138 of 2025 Decided on: 15.12.2025 Dhani Ram … applicant/Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the applicant : Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made by the applicant for condonation of 2 years and 190 days’ delay in filing the letters patent appeal. 2. The petitioner intends to assail the judgment dated 08.05.2023, passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in CWP No. 3800 of 2020, titled as Dhani Ram vs. State of H.P. and others. In terms of the averments made in the application, the reasons 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43922 given therein are that since 8th of May, 2023 upto 14.06.2024, the applicant remained mentally disturbed on account of the acts of omission and commission of the respondent- Department, which as per the applicant, ruined him. Another ground given in the application is that the applicant is an illiterate poor villager and he was not even aware as to what was mentioned in the judgment and he was also not aware whether he was having any legal remedy against the judgment in issue or not. Primarily on these grounds, delay is being prayed to be condoned. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant, the grounds which are spelled out in the application, praying for condonation of delay, do not impress us. The contention of the applicant that being a rustic villager, he does not know the nuances of law, cannot be accepted because he has been espousing his cause through the legal mechanism, earlier by way of raising an industrial dispute before learned Labour Court and thereafter by assailing the award before this Court by way of a writ petition. Besides this, the explanation given in the application cannot be construed to be a reasonable 3 2025:HHC:43922 justification for condonation of delay of more than two years and 190 days, as delay is substantive which with the afflux of time has now created certain rights in favour of the opposite party. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this application is dismissed, so is the fate of the accompanying appeal. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge December 15, 2025 (narender)