2025:HHC:29765 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.265 of 2018 Decided on: 02.09.2025 Smt. Shamo Devi … Petitioner Versus Smt. Kailasho Devi … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court Indora, District Kangra, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the applicant, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the impugned order. 3. It is not in dispute that the delay in filing the appeal was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29765 of 53 days. In terms of the impugned order, learned Appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the application, inter alia, on the ground that whereas there was no reasonable or satisfactory explanation put-forth by the applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it further did not approach the Court with clean hands and took a false plea that the delay was on account of sickness, whereas there was nothing placed on record by the applicant to prove this fact. Learned Appellate Court also observed that though it was disputed by the applicant that she was present before the learned Trial Court when the judgment was delivered, but record demonstrated to the contrary. 4. This Court is of the considered view that though in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, learned Appellate Court was bound to take this aspect of the matter while deciding the application, however, taking into consideration the fact that the delay beyond the period of limitation was of 53 days, it would have been in the interest of justice in case the application had been allowed by imposing costs upon the petitioner. This is for the reason that delay was not that substantive that condonation thereof would have had caused prejudice to the other party. 3 2025:HHC:29765 5. Accordingly, as this Court is of the considered view that the order under challenge is slightly harsh in the facts of the case, this petition is allowed and order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. The parties through Counsel are directed to appear before learned Appellate Court concerned on 22.09.2025. If on the said date, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is paid by the petitioner to the respondent by way of a Bank Draft, then this order shall become operative and the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be heard on merit and in case the costs is not paid to the respondent by way of a Bank Draft on the said date, then this order will loose its efficacy and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P/6) shall again become operative. Record be sent forth-with. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 02, 2025 (Rishi)