M/s GNG Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL) O MP(M) No.4 of 2025 a/w OMP No.72 of 2025 Item No. D-1 21.05.2025 Present: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satish Sharma and Ms. Swati Verma, Advocates, for the respondent-HPSEBL. OMP(M) No.4 of 2025 & OMP No.72 of 2025 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Apart from that there is also an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal which is barred by 153 days. 2. The applications have been opposed by the respondent by filing the reply as such and contesting the averments made in the applications. The perusal of the application would go on to show that the filing was done on 10.06.2024 with a photocopy of the judgment dated 09.04.2024 and it has been averred that applicant was suffering from Bilateral Inguinal Hernia disease and was gone through surgery. The affidavit has been submitted by Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Director, M/s GNG Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., and it has been averred in the application that he was not in a position to travel and on 09.06.2024 he visited the office of his counsel and signed the petition on 10.06.2024. 3. The necessary proof of the treatment as such has also been appended as Annexure A-1, showing that the procedure as such was done and there was an admission on 20.04.2024 for the disease of Hernia and a Mesh as such was put. The objection raised by the office was that the certified copy as such has not been appended along with the appeal which was then applied for. The objection taken by the respondent is that the presence as such was not required of the applicant for applying for the certified copy and when the certified copy was applied, it was applied by the counsel for the applicant as such and the surgery was undergone in April 2024 and it was no ground for condonation of delay. 4. Similarly, in the application for re-filing, it has been mentioned that on account of the objection raised, as such for want of certified copy, there was a delay in filing Arbitration Appeal and it would be apparent that the affidavit in OMP(M) No.4 of 2025 was attested on 20.10.2024 and the application came to be filed on 22.11.2024 and OMP No.72 of 2025 came to be filed on 31.12.2024 and thus the appeal had been re-filed on 31.12.2024 on the said date and there was a delay in re- filing of 200 days instead of 20 days in terms of Rule 6 of Chapter 6(D) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Appellate side Rules 2018. Once it has come on record and it is substantiated by medical evidence that the Director as such was suffering from a disease which required admission, we are of the considered opinion that there is sufficient cause made out to condone the delay and the settled principle is that the matter should be decided on merits rather on technicalities and each and every day’s delay is not to be explained as has been held by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Smt. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107. 5. The facts as such are apparent that the counsel for the applicant was diligent enough as such to append a photocopy and file the appeal and it is only on account of the certified copy being not available, the office raised an objection, therefore, there has been no inaction as such. Once the appeal had been filed, the re- filing though delayed as such has been reasonably explained that the Director was not in a position to travel from Gurgaon, and therefore we find that applications are liable to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and disposed of. Arb. Appeal No.____ of 2025 Appeal be registered. Notice. Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. To come up on 09.07.2025. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice May 21, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge