IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 45 of 2025 Date of decision 19.09.2025. Rajni Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus M.C. Shimla ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 5.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 136-S/6 of 2024. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court) has dismissed the application of the petitioner herein filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against an order directing the authorities to withdraw the basic amenities like water and electricity from the premises of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- the petitioner for violating the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. 3. The appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Act came to be filed before the learned Additional District Judge on 31.7.2024. Thus there was huge delay in approaching the Court. 4. The ground raised by the petitioner was that she was residing at Chennai and was not aware about the ex- parte order, as her counsel had not intimated her in time. The learned Court below has, however, noted that an intimation was sent to the petitioner on 19.01.2024, informing her that her application for setting aside ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner was not tenable. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order took into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and did not find any cause much less sufficient cause having been shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay. 5. I have also perused the record of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. It is revealed that after passing of an ex-parte order dated -3- 18.3.2023 by the Commissioner, the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also an application for staying the operation of the order dated 18.3.2023, which bears the date 8.12.2023. Noticeably, the applications filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner were for condonation of delay and stay of the proceedings, without there being a substantive application, seeking setting aside of the order. In such circumstances, the Commissioner had sent an intimation dated 19.01.2024 to the petitioner that her applications were not tenable. Even thereafter, the petitioner waited for more than six months before filing the appeal that too without challenging the order/communication dated 19.01.2024. 6. In result, I find no illegality and perversity committed by the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 19th September, 2025 Judge (kck) -4-