2026:HHC:22485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 934 of 2018 in Review Petition No. 45 of 2018 Reserved on: May 25, 2026 Decided on: June 16, 2026 Uploaded on: June 16, 2026 ________________________________________________________ Madhu Sood and other ……….. Applicants/Review Petitioners Versus Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited .. Non-applicant/respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Applicants/ Review Petitioners Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate. For the Non-applicant/ Respondent Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, ADvocate. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge CMP(M) No. 934 of 2018 By way of instant application filed under S.5 of Limitation Act, read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants/review petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Kuldeep Kumar Sood, for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying review petition. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, non- applicant/respondent has filed reply, wherein prayer made on behalf of applicants for condonation of delay has been vehemently opposed on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:22485 2 which is otherwise not maintainable, for the reason that the judgment sought to be reviewed has been upheld upto Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court finds that there is delay of 3121 days in maintaining the accompanying review petition and same is sought to be condoned on the ground that judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Arb. Case No. 62/03, titled Kuldeep Kumar Sood v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited thereby upholding the award dated 10.10.2002 passed by Arbitral Tribunal is based upon fraud committed by respondents. Since fraud allegedly committed by respondents has not been elaborately explained in the application, this court, finds it necessary to take note of certain facts, which otherwise would be relevant for adjudication of the application at hand, which are detailed in following paras. 4. Respondent-Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter, ‘PTDCL’) launched a scheme titled ‘Punjab Tourism Holiday Home Club’ in the year 1986 and an advertisement was issued in May/June, 1986, seeking applications from the parties to collaborate with PTDCL for setting up holiday home resort at Dharamshala. The scheme was conceived to provide lodging, boarding and restaurant facilities for the members of holiday home club. Site owned by Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sood (since deceased) was selected for construction of holiday home. An agreement dated 28.10.1986 for construction of 27 rooms on time sharing basis to be completed within 20 months was executed inter se late Kuldeep Kumar Sood and PTDCL. As per 2026:HHC:22485 3 agreement, above named person was under obligation to provide parking path, mutation and other recreational facilities. 5. Since, dispute arose between the parties and allegedly Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sood failed to perform his part of contract, PTDCL proceeded to terminate the contract on 14.9.1994. Late Kuldeep Kumar Sood filed Civil Suit praying therein for permanent injunction restraining PTDCL from entering upon the said land denoted by Khasra No. 3005, measuring 170.62 square metres in the court of learned Sub Judge, Dharamshala, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.11.2000 on the ground that same was being used by the parties as a common approach. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by civil court, Mr. Sod preferred an appeal in the appellate court, however during the pendency of the appeal, arbitration proceedings came to be commenced on 14.1.2002 and learned arbitrator passed award dated 10.10.2002 for Rs.87,61,500/- against Mr. Sood, for not providing passage, parking and other facilities, as agreed inter se parties. 7. Mr. Sood challenged the award passed by learned arbitrator in this Court, under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by way of Arb. Case No. 62/2003, which was decided on 11.11.2009, whereby the objections /petition was dismissed. 8. Appeal preferred against judgment passed by Sub Judge, Dharamshala was allowed by Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, and judgment passed by Sub Judge was set aside on 2026:HHC:22485 4 1.1.2003, whereby PTDCL was restrained from using the path in Khasra No. 3005. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dharamshala, PTDCL filed RSA No. 168 of 2003 alongwith an application under Order XLI, rule 5 CPC, which was disposed of as compromised, whereby Rs.3.00 Lakh was to be paid to Mr. Sood and in return, sale deed was to be executed in favour of PTDCL and in case, PTDCL does not take steps within two weeks, appeal was to stand dismissed automatically. The order was not complied with. 10. An application under S.148 CPC seeking enlargement of time was filed by PTDCL i.e. CMP No. 254 of 2005, however, it was dismissed on 20.6.2005. On 4.4.2003, PTDCL filed Execution Petition No. 2008 of 2003 in this Court, which was also dismissed with liberty on the ground that since objections under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were still pending, execution at that stage was not maintainable. 11. Late Mr. Sood, also filed Arbitration Appeal No. 3/2010 before Division Bench of this Court laying therein challenge to judgment dated 11.11.2002 passed by learned Single Judge, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2012. After disposal of arbitration appeal, a revival application No. 8 of 2003 was filed for revival of arbitration appeal. After demise of Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sood, his legal heirs were proceeded against ex parte and warrant of attachment was issued in Execution Petition No. 8 of 2003, whereafter, legal heirs of late Mr. Sood deposited Rs.1.55 Crore. Legal heirs of late Mr. Sood 2026:HHC:22485 5 filed a review petition for review of judgment dated 5.1.2012 passed by Division Bench, dismissing the appeal filed against judgment of learned Single Judge but same was barred by limitation, as there was delay of 1555 days, as such, an application under S.5 of Limitation Act was also filed. However, the Division Bench of this Court having taken note of huge delay, which was not explained, proceeded to pass order dated 3.5.2007, thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 3.5.2007, passed by Division Bench of ths court, legal heirs of Kuldeep Kumar Sood filed SLP No. 35146-47 of 2017 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.10.2017, on the ground of delay. Review petition No. 40741 of 2017 filed against said order was also dismissed on 22.2.2018. 13. In the afore backdrop, present applicants who are legal heirs of Kuldeep Kumar Sood filed present review petition alongwith application for condonation of delay. It is asserted in the application that a fraud has been committed by respondent PTDCL as such, court responsible for passing judgment sought to be reviewed has inherent power to recall the judgment. It is averred in the application that wrong averments have been made in OMP No. 150/2018 for revival, stating that execution petition was adjourned sine die by this court, thus action be initiated under S.340 CrPC read with S.195 IPC and Execution Petition No. 8/2003 be dismissed. It is stated that PTDCL could have preferred a fresh execution petition but could not have revived the same stating that same was adjourned sine die, that too, by this court, which amounts to misleading this Court, in passing a favourable order, 2026:HHC:22485 6 prejudicing rights of legal heirs/present applicants. Besides above, it is averred that since judgment passed by learned Single Judge is based upon misrepresentation of facts, technically there is no requirement for filing application for condonation of delay for condoning delay in filing the accompanying review petition. Save and except, grounds, as noticed herein above, no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing review petition, maintainability whereof is yet to be established in the main proceedings, in case delay is condoned and review petition is heard on merit. 14. It is apparent from the facts noticed herein above that applicants have lost their legal battle upto Hon'ble Apex Court but yet, again, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, on the grounds, which were very much available to them, at the time of contesting/pursuing remedies in various forums, including this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. 15. In nutshell, case of the applicants, as has been projected in the application and further canvassed by learned counsel for the applicants is that vide award dated 10.10.2002, there were three claims of respondent one regarding loss of rooms, mentioning the number of rooms to be 150 in each head, giving impression as if there was a loss of 450 rooms per month, which is actually and factually incorrect. It is averred that afore claim of the respondent PTDCL has been allowed by learned Arbitrator under the impression as if rooms were lying vacant on account of non-providing parking and other facilities by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants and respondent as per stand taken by it at the relevant time before learned Arbitrator and even 2026:HHC:22485 7 before this court at the time of passing of order dated 11.11.2009, property in question was a time sharing property and was duly leased out as per their own admission in the paragraph No. 4 of the preliminary objections of amended written statement dated 23.7.1998, filed in the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, wherein following objection was taken: “4. That the suit is bad for non joinder of parties as at present Sh. R.K. Sharma the lessee of the Complex who is running the complex..” 16. It is also averred that in the pleadings that the non-applicant has claimed the damages on the ground of non-providing of passage by predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/review petitioners to the time sharing complex in question and in this regard even amount of Rs.15.00 Lakh has been granted for non-arranging mutation in the name of both the parties and creating hindrance in the passage. It is stated by the applicants that in RSA No. 168 of 2003 titled Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sh. Kuldeep K. Sood and another, filed against judgment and decree dated 1.1.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, the respondent admitted in para-2 of the grounds of appeal that a passage was made and parking was organized by the respondent PTDCL on its own cost and which was being used since the year 1987 for ingress and outgress to said resort by the employees/ construction works/ guests staying in the Holiday Home Resort. Learned counsel for the applicants, while referring to aforesaid averments, vehemently argued 2026:HHC:22485 8 that afore admission itself proves the guilt/mala fides of the respondent as it has been changing its stand from time to time as per its suitability in order to procure favourable orders. 17. Having carefully perused the award dated 10.10.2002 passed by learned Arbitrator as well as judgment passed by this Court, whereby award came to be upheld, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that all the grounds sought to be raised in the instant proceedings for establishing fraud have been already dealt by the Court. Moreover, this Court finds that sum of Rs.15.00 Lakh was awarded by Land Acquisition Collector for non-arranging mutation. Though, factum with regard to providing parking might have been established by the applicants but since in terms of agreement, mutation of land never came to be arranged, learned Arbitrator proceeded to award the some amount, under the claim raised by respondent PTDCL in this regard. 18. Though, this Court having carefully perused the record is fully convinced that grounds otherwise raised for condonation of delay, which is not only huge, but has not been properly explained, have been elaborately dealt with by learned Arbitrator as well as learned Single Judge of this court, but even otherwise, there is no explanation that why these grounds were not earlier raised in the application filed for condonation of delay in maintaining arbitration appeal and thereafter, before Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby order passed by Division Bench of this Court, dismissing application for condonation of delay in filing review petition, came to be upheld. 2026:HHC:22485 9 19. 2026:HHC:22485 9 19. Though, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the applicants cited various judgment to demonstrate that judgment, if any, obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be set aside and there is no requirement of filing application for condonation of delay in filing review petition, for getting such judgment reviewed /modified, but having taken note of the fact that there is no sufficient material placed on record to prove fraud or misrepresentation, if any, committed by respondent PTDCL in procuring judgment passed by this court, which is now being sought to be reviewed, this court sees no reason to take note of the said judgments. 20. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in the application and same is dismissed. Review Petition No. 45 of 2018 21. Resultantly, Review Petition No. 45 of 2018 is also dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. Execution Petition No. 8 of 2003 22. List on 21.7.2026, as jointly agreed by parties. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 16, 2026 Vikrant