IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.371 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025. Dulo Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. ...Petitioners Versus Prabhu Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge C MP(M) No.371 of 2025 The applicants/petitioners have filed the present application for condonation of 259 days’ delay in filing the review petition. It has been asserted that the applicants/petitioners were afraid to file the review petition because the Court had imposed the costs of ₹50,000/- in the main petition. The applicants/petitioners sought further advice, and the present review petition is being filed as per the advice. The delay in filing the review petition is not intentional but bona 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 fide. There is a delay of 259 days’ in filing the review. The very purpose of filing of review petition would be frustrated by not condoning the delay. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying its contents. It was asserted that the review is an abuse of the process of the Court. The review petition is the 8th round of litigation by the applicants. They went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and thereafter filed frivolous objections in the execution petition, which were dismissed by the learned Trial Court. They filed Civil Revision No.72 of 2023, which was dismissed on 19.06.2024 with costs. The suit was filed on 07.07.1992, and the litigation is 33 years old. The applicants have filed another Civil Revision Petition No. 1 of 2025 against the interlocutory order of the executing Court, which is still pending. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for the review, and the order of imposition of cost is not reviewable, more so when the cost is tendered and accepted by the respondents; therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. It was asserted that the applicants are rustic villagers not aware of the law. They filed the revision petition on the advice of their counsel, and there is no fault on their part. They were unable to make up their mind regarding the filing of the review petition. 3 Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the review petition be condoned. 4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Kavita Kajal, learned counsel, for the applicants/petitioners and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rohit, learned counsel, for the respondent. 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/petitioners, submitted that the applicants/petitioners have sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. They could not make up their mind regarding the filing of the review because of the imposition of costs of ₹50,000/-. They sought legal advice and thereafter filed the present review petition. He prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the review be condoned. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the applicants/petitioners have failed to assign any reason for the condonation of delay. The applicants/petitioners are dragging the respondent into unnecessary litigation by filing frivolous petitions. An order imposing cost is not reviewable; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 4 8. It has been asserted in the application that the applicants/petitioners were afraid to file the review because the Court might impose the cost. This is no reason at all for the condonation delay. Section 35 of CPC provides that the cost will be at the discretion of the Court, and where the Court directs that any cost shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reason in writing. Therefore, the normal course is the imposition of the cost, and the exception is the recording of the reasons for deviating from the normal course. Hence, every litigant is aware of the fact that cost shall follow the event, and the Court may decline to impose the cost in a suitable case. Hence, the plea taken by the applicants/petitioners that they were apprehensive about the imposition of the cost will not help them at all. They knew that the imposition of the cost was the normal rule, and their apprehension was baseless. 9. It was submitted that the applicants/petitioners have a good case on merits because the imposition of the cost was not proper. This submission is not acceptable. The imposition of the cost is not an error apparent on the face of the record but a deliberate decision taken by the Court because of the conduct of applicants/petitioners noticed in the order. The submission that the revision was filed after taking legal advice, for which the applicants/petitioners should not be penalised, will not help them because it is a matter between the applicants/petitioners 5 and their counsel. It is extraneous to the matter pending before the Court and does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; hence, the submission that the applicants/petitioners have a good case in their favour on merits is also not correct. 10. The name of the learned counsel from whom the advice was sought was not mentioned, even the date of seeking the advice was also not given. The contents of the application are happily vague and do not furnish any sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay. It is not explained as to why the legal advice was not sought from the learned counsel who had represented them in the main matter. Mere mention that legal advice was sought is no reason at all to explain the delay. 11. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. RPST 8027 of 2025 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the proposed review petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)