Municipal Corporation Shimla vs Shanti Swaroop CMP (M) No.229 of 2026 02.04.2026 Present: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made for condonation of 1 year and 33 days delay in filing the appeal. The appeal along with an application for condonation of delay has been preferred against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.9105 of 2024 titled as Shanti Swaroop vs State of H.P and others. As the order under challenge is a short one, relevant portion thereof is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has been adjudicated upon in a decision rendered in Ram Singh Thakur vs. State of H.P. & Ors. That the order impugned therein, is the same order impugned in the present writ petition. The respondents had rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of relief prayed by him under a common order that was passed in case of petitioner in CWP No.9862 of 2024, therefore, the findings recorded in aforesaid decision and the directions issued therein are applicable to instant petition as well. 3. In view of stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in light of judgment rendered in Ram Singh Thakur’s case. Accordingly, impugned order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and respondent No.3 is directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of decision rendered in Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. It goes without saying that the observations and findings recorded in the Ram Singh Thakur’s case shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case.” A perusal of the order under challenge demonstrates that it was a consent order, as Para-2 of the order itself suggests that it was jointly submitted before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel for the parties that the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge wrongly stood adjudicated on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ram Singh Thakur vs State of HP & others CWP No.9862 of 2024 and the same ought to have been decided in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi vs State of H.P & others. Not only this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was only to the effect that let a fresh call be taken in the matter in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi vs State of H.P and another as also the observations and findings recorded in Ram Singh Thakur’s case. In this light of the fact, as only direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the authority was to consider the case of the petitioner, the filing of the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, as this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of more than 1 year & 33 days in filing the appeal, the application is dismissed and so is the fate of the appeal. Though, the Court was inclined to impose cost on the appellant, however, on the request of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the Court has refrained itself from imposing cost. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 02, 2026 (meera) (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge