2025:HHC:37247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.691 of 2023 Date of Decision: 06th November, 2025 Uma Devi and others .....Applicants/Appellants Versus Dinesh Kumar and others ….non-Applicants/respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. : None for respondent No.2. : Respondents No. 3 to 12 proceeded against ex parte. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 244 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 3. The 1st Appeal in the case at hand filed by the other side had been finally dismissed on 30.8.2022. It is averred in the application that once the appeal preferred by the other side had been dismissed by the learned Additional 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 District Judge, Nalagarh, the counsel who had appeared for the applicants at Nalagarh had informed that in view of the dismissal, no appeal was required to be filed. 4. It is further averred in the application that qua payment of compensation, a RFA bearing No. 1 of 2021 is pending consideration in the Hon’ble High Court. In the same, post dismissal of the appeal in the case at hand on 30.08.2022, an application bearing CMP No. 17273 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is stated to have been filed by the other side. A copy of the same was supplied to the counsel for the applicants on 24.11.2022. Through a registered letter-applicant Sanjay Kumar was informed about the filing of the application, however, the registered letter was returned as the addressee was not found at the address where the registered letter was to be delivered. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is averred in the application that husband of one of the applicants, who lives in Shimla was informed about the filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the aforesaid Regular First Appeal. Thereafter the applicants contacted their counsel with respect to filing of the reply to the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the RFA. It then 3 transpired that on account of findings returned by the learned Additional District Judge in judgment dated 30.08.2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the other side, an appeal was required to be filed on behalf of the present applicants. In the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2022, it is averred in the application that a Will dated 27.7.1992 had been held to be not proved. By virtue of the said Will executed by one Smt. Indro Devi, property had been bequeathed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants. On account of the Will dated 27.7.1992 not being proved, mutation No. 440 dated 16.3.1995 attested in favour of the applicants had been rendered otiose and succession qua the property bequeathed had been reopened. 6. In reply, it has been submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay of 244 days in filing the appeal has been filed in a most casual and perfunctory manner. Blame is sought to be shifted upon the counsel who had appeared for the applicants before the 1st Appellate Court. The application is not supported by an affidavit of the counsel, who it is alleged to have advised non-filing of an appeal against the impugned judgment 4 dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh. 7. It is further averred that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed in RFA No. 1 of 2021 had been supplied to the counsel for the applicants on 24.11.2022, but despite the same, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed in the month of May 2023 approximately after five months. Insofar as information qua filing of the application for impleadment is concerned, except for a bald assertion, nothing has been placed on record by the applicants to show that a copy of the same had been sent to the applicant Sanjay Kumar via registered post and that the same had been returned undelivered. No registered letter, postal receipt has been placed on record, nor has any endorsement of the postal department been produced in this respect. The name of the husband of the applicant who is based in Shimla and who received information qua filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has not been disclosed nor the application been supported by an affidavit of such an individual. 8. Last but not the least, it is submitted that on account of the delay in filing of the appeal, the rights inter 5 se the parties have become final, and if interfered with, grave prejudice shall be occasioned to the present applicants/respondents. 9. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.17575 of 2023 title Thirunagalingam vs. Lingeswaran & Anr. decided on 13.05.2025, relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below; “Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasized in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet”. 10. Other than the aforesaid it would be appropriate to refer to case reported as Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 for the legal propositions laid therein qua law of limitation. 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting 6 from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266: “605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.—The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence.” An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project.) 14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to 7 legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.” 11. Admittedly, the delay in the case at hand is of 244 days. The length of delay is immaterial. The condonation of delay is a discretionary power. Exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of cause shown and the degree   of its acceptability thereof. The expression “sufficient cause” is to be duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part (Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81). 12. The Court must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment reported as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India and Another, 2023 (10) SCC 531. The relevant extract of the same are as under: “…...Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and 8 struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. 32. An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.” 13. “Want of Diligence” or inaction can be attributed to a litigant when something is required to be done by him is not done. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao, (2009) 11 SCC 183 :- “Want of ‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent.” 14. The applicants in the case at hand were defendants before the trial Court. They had set up a Will dated 27.7.1992. The same had been accepted by the trial Court. Per contra, Will set up by the non-applicants/plaintiffs before the trial Court dated 27.9.1993 had been disbelieved. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the non-applicants had preferred an appeal, the same was dismissed. However, findings qua the Will dated 27.7.1992 set up by the present applicants had been set aside by the 1st Appellate Court. Consequences of the same were known to the 9 applicants, and in this respect non-filing of an appeal by then shows a complete “want of diligence” on their part. 15. Admittedly, in the case at hand, appeal preferred by the other side had been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalgarh on 30.08.2022. While dismissing the appeal, Will dated 27.7.1992 was held not to be proved. The said Will dated 27.07.1992 had been allegedly executed by one Smt. Indro Devi in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants. Since the same was not proved, as a consequence whereof, mutation bearing No. 440 dated 16.03.1995 attested in favour of the applicants was rendered otiose and succession reopened. 16. When such serious civil consequences were visited upon the present applicants by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, it is difficult to fathom as to why an appropriate appeal against the same was not filed by the present applicants. In this respect, the explanation offered is that the counsel, who had appeared for the applicants at Nalagarh had informed the applicants that no appeal was required to be filed in the case at hand. 17. The said averment is not supported by any affidavit filed by the counsel who had appeared for the applicants before the 1st Appellate Court. The explanation offered cannot be believed to be true as the explanation offered is an “excuse” to deny 10 responsibility and consequences. A mere statement that the counsel had advised non-filing of the appeal cannot be termed as “sufficient cause” in terms of law discussed hereinabove. 18. It is further contended that consequences of the judgment dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh were only known to the applicants when an application for impleadment were filed by the non- applicants in Regular First Appeal bearing No. 1 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court and that the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the applicants made them aware of the consequences of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal dated 30.08.2022. 19. In this respect, first and foremost, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on 24.11.2022. The application for codnonation of delay in the case at hand was filed five months thereafter in May, 2023. The application filed for impleadment had been supplied to the counsel for the applicants appearing in RFA No. 1 of 2021. It is further averred that the applicant Sanjay Kumar was informed vide registered letter about the filing of the same. However, the registered letter could not be delivered and the same was returned. Thereafter husband of one of the applicants’ who lives in Shimla was informed about the application filed for impleadment by the non-applicants. 11 20. Qua the aforesaid, no registered letter, postal receipt, endorsement has been placed on record to demonstrate that a copy of the application dated 24.11.2022 had been sent to the applicant, however, could not be delivered. Besides the aforesaid who informed the husband of one of the applicants is also conspicuous by absence in the application. The name of the husband of the applicant has also not been disclosed. Averments in this respect are not supported by an affidavit of the said individual. The application has been filed in the most casual and routine manner. 21. The purport of the application is that whatever has happened is not the applicants fault. In the application for condonation of delay, there is nothing to indicate any action taken to fix responsibility on someone who should be held accountable. 22. Much time has elapsed since the decision of the 1st Appellate Court. Issues settled and decided by Courts should not be sought to be disturbed after passage of sufficient time as parties must be allowed live in peace and certainty. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal, therefore, the present application is dismissed. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 06th November, 2025 (Tarun)