6IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 62 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 Bhupinder Kaur .....Petitioner. Versus M/s Shivalik Cooperative Home Building Society Ltd. and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Verma and Aditya Chouhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petitioner was defendant No.6 before the learned trial Court. The suit was filed by the present respondent No.1 before the trial Court and the same was decreed on 20.09.2013. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013, passed by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner i.e defendant No.6 before the learned trial Court. 3. There was delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. The same was instituted on 06.05.2019 before the First Appellate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Court. On account of the delay in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed. Vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. It is against the said dismissal of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and documents appended thereto. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2005 (1) SCC 436, titled Shyam Sundar Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and Others, an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision petition would not be maintainable, therefore, the present revision petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to proceed in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 31st July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)