Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16855 (HP)

Prem Singh v. Indira Sharma

2026-03-31

Virender Singh

body2026
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 Applicant-Prem Singh has filed these applications for restoration of his Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012, after condoning the delay in moving the application. 2. OMP No. 204 of 2018 has been filed for restoration of the Civil Suit, under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 has been filed under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above two applications, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 3.1 Applicant-Prem Singh and two others have filed the Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 for Specific Performance, against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in default on 24.08.2017. On that day, this Court had passed the following order:- “Court notices issued to the plaintiffs are reported to be served upon them, however, they neither put in appearance in person nor the counsel appearing for them under a Vakalatnama holds any instructions from them in respect of their meting compliance with the orders recorded by this Court on 16.11.2016, thereupon the learned counsel for the plaintiff is constrained to seek permission of this Court to withdraw his power of attorney for the plaintiffs. He is permitted to do so. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ suit is dismissed in default. Court fee(s) in accordance with law be refunded to the plaintiffs. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.” 3.2 Applicant-Prem Singh has now filed OMP No. 204 of 2018, for restoration of his suit, which was dismissed in default. 3.3 Since, the said application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved. 3.4 The restoration of the suit, after condoning the delay, has been sought, mainly, on the ground, that after passing the order dated 24.08.2017, the counsel for the plaintiffs has sent the information with regard to the dismissal of the suit, but, no response has been received from plaintiff No. 1. 3.4 The restoration of the suit, after condoning the delay, has been sought, mainly, on the ground, that after passing the order dated 24.08.2017, the counsel for the plaintiffs has sent the information with regard to the dismissal of the suit, but, no response has been received from plaintiff No. 1. 3.5 On 22.04.2018, one client, of the counsel representing applicant-Prem Singh, who, as per the application, was also witness to the agreement to sell, contacted the counsel in connection with some other case, then, the said client was requested by the counsel to inform the plaintiffs about the fate of the present Civil Suit, who, accordingly informed applicant Prem Singh. The said person had also found that Prem Singh is suffering from number of ailments and remained confine to bed. Applicant was also found to be suffering from Ulcer and Spinal problem. However, after the receipt of information, he immediately requested the Doctor to provide the medical certificate with regard to his ailment. Applicant Prem Singh remained under treatment with Paras Ayurvedic Centre, from where the certificate was issued. The Doctor of the said hospital has also advised him to have complete bed rest. 3.6 It is further case of the applicant that he could not comply with the order dated 16.11.2016, due to his ailment and he was also having no knowledge of the same. He could not also contact his Advocate on account of his ill health. 3.7 Another ground, upon which, restoration of the suit has also been sought is that the applicant had not received the Court notices, when his counsel had sought the withdrawal of his Vakalatnama. Reasserting the fact that the applicant was not aware about the proceedings, nor, received any summons from the Court, a prayer has been made to restore the suit to its original number after condoning the delay. 3.8 The delay in moving the application has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground, upon which, the restoration of the suit has been sought. 3.8 The delay in moving the application has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground, upon which, the restoration of the suit has been sought. In the application, it has been pleaded that one of the clients of his counsel, on 22.04.2018, visited the counsel, who had represented the applicant and it has been conveyed to the said client to inform about the dismissal of the suit in default to the applicant, upon which, said Shyam Sunder contacted the applicant and conveyed him about the orders passed by this Court on 16.11.2016. 3.9 It has also been pleaded in the application that on 26.04.2018, the counsel of the plaintiffs came to know from Sh. Shyam Sunder, resident of Kasauli, who was witness to the agreement to sell, about the ailment of the applicant. It has also been apprised to the counsel of the plaintiffs that the applicant is under treatment w.e.f. June, 2016. Thereafter, on telephonic conversation, it was also found that the applicant was unable to come to Shimla. Thereafter, applicant had produced the certificates issued by the Doctor dated 24.04.2018, 06.11.2017, 16.06.2017 and 31.10.2016, through Sh. Shyam Sunder. 3.10 Thereafter, the applications have been prepared, which were forwarded to the applicant for signatures and attestation on 28.04.2018 and same were received back on 05.05.2018, but application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, was not received, as the same was lost during transit. Thereafter, application was again re-drafted and sent for signatures and attestation on 06.05.2018, which was received back on 09.05.2018. 3.11 On the basis of above facts, delay in moving the application has been sought to be condoned. 4. When put to notice, OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, has been contested, on the ground, that the applicant/ plaintiffs had not complied with the order dated 16.11.2016. Not only this, the applicant deliberately failed to put appearance before this Court on 24.08.2017, despite service of the Court notices. According to the respondents, the notices were served upon the plaintiffs in person on 28.07.2017. In this regard, respondents relied upon the report of Registry dated 21.08.2017. 4.1 It is their further case that applicant Prem Singh had received the summons on behalf of his wife Smt. Kaushalya. Plaintiff No. 3 Gopal Singh was also served in person and they had failed to put appearance before the Court, despite service of summons of this Court. In this regard, respondents relied upon the report of Registry dated 21.08.2017. 4.1 It is their further case that applicant Prem Singh had received the summons on behalf of his wife Smt. Kaushalya. Plaintiff No. 3 Gopal Singh was also served in person and they had failed to put appearance before the Court, despite service of summons of this Court. As such, this Court has rightly dismissed the suit in default. 4.2 It is also their case that on that day i.e. 24.08.2017, counsel representing the plaintiffs was also present and his presence was duly marked. The allegations, as contained in the application, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, are also stated to be concocted facts. According to the respondents, the applicant is unable to explain the delay, in the present case. The order dated 24.08.2017, is also stated to be well within the knowledge of the counsel representing them, as well as, other two applicants i.e. Smt. Kaushalaya and Gopal Singh. 4.3 All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that if it is assumed that if applicant was not feeling well, then, other two plaintiffs had ample opportunity to contact their counsel or to appear before this Court after receiving the summons for 24.08.2017. 4.4 Other allegations, as levelled in the application, have also been controverted/disputed. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 6. Non-applicant/defendant No. 8 filed the separate reply and the application has also been contested on the similar grounds. 7. Following issues were framed by this Court in OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 and OMP No. 204 of 2018, on 19.09.2018:- 1. Whether the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been sufficiently explained? OPP 2. Relief. 8. After framing of the issues, the applicant has examined AW-1, Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has deposed that after superannuating from the services, he had started his private practice. Applicant Prem Singh visited him in the year 2016, with the pain in lower back and Ulcerative colitis. Due to the ailment, the patient was unable to make easy movement and also, it was difficult for him to travel. Applicant remained under his treatment, since June, 2016, till the date he appeared in the witness box i.e. 18.03.2019. He issued the certificate Ext. Due to the ailment, the patient was unable to make easy movement and also, it was difficult for him to travel. Applicant remained under his treatment, since June, 2016, till the date he appeared in the witness box i.e. 18.03.2019. He issued the certificate Ext. AW1/A. 8.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2016, applicant Prem Singh was in critical condition and for panchkarma treatment, he visited his clinic for about 8 to 10 times, and sometimes, AW-1 used to visit his home. 8.2 Lastly, he has deposed that without the help of attendant, it was not possible for the applicant to visit his clinic. 8.3 In the cross-examination by learned counsel for defendants-non-applicants No. 1 to 6, this witness has admitted that in the certificate Ext. AW1/A, he has not mentioned the period of bed rest. This witness does not maintain the record with regard to OPDs. However, according to him, he maintained the entries of the applicant, however, said register has not been brought, as the same was not summoned. He further admitted that registration number of the patient has not been entered in Ext. AW1/A. However, he voluntarily stated that inadvertently, he failed to mention the same in the prescription slip. 8.4 In the cross-examination by learned counsel for non-applicant No. 8, this witness has admitted that he has not obtained patient signatures on the OPD slips. 9. AW-2, Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, deposed that he had engaged Mr. Anand Sharma, as his Advocate and he met him in the month of April, 2018. Mr. Anand Sharma was engaged as a counsel to seek advise with respect to a tax matter. This witness had also come to him to know about the fate of his Regular Second Appeal pending before this Court. 9.1 In addition to this, he is witness to the agreement to sell, whereof, decree for Specific Performance was claimed on 26.04.2018 by the applicant. This witness has informed the applicant that he is negligent in attending his case. However, when he visited the applicant, he noticed that he was in critical condition. It is his further case that applicant is critically ill and when he had to travel, the vehicle had to be stopped after every 10-15 minutes. 9.2 According to this witness, he had brought the applicant on 17.03.2019 and lodged him in a hotel in Shimla. However, when he visited the applicant, he noticed that he was in critical condition. It is his further case that applicant is critically ill and when he had to travel, the vehicle had to be stopped after every 10-15 minutes. 9.2 According to this witness, he had brought the applicant on 17.03.2019 and lodged him in a hotel in Shimla. Lastly, he has deposed that he could not inform him earlier, as he had visited his son at London (U.K.). 9.3 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had appeared as PW, in the present case, however, he has feigned his ignorance about other plaintiffs, who had instituted the case. He has admitted that brother of the applicant has been arrayed as co-plaintiff in the suit. His wife has also been arrayed as co-plaintiff, but voluntarily stated that she must have executed the power of attorney, in favour of the applicant. 10. Applicant-Prem Singh appeared in the witness box as AW-3. According to this witness, he had filed the suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell, in the year 2012. In the said suit, evidence of the plaintiff was completed and thereafter, the case was listed for DWs. However, prior to the date fixed i.e. 16.11.2016, this witness had fallen ill and ailment was Ulcer colitis and damage of spinal cord. He remained under treatment with Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has proved the medical summary as Ext. AW1/A. He had taken the treatment from Paras Ayurvedic Center, being run by Dr. M.S. Thakur. 10.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2018, one Shyam Sunder, who made negotiations to sell the suit property, told him that the suit filed by them has been dismissed in default on 24.08.2017, for want of his personal appearance. He has requested him to contact his counsel and after receiving intimation from him, when this witness, contacted his counsel, he has also been apprised about the order, which was passed on 24.08.2017. Thereafter, he was advised to file the restoration application. 10.2 Lastly, he has deposed that his failure to impart instructions to his counsel, as well as, appearance before the Court was neither intentional nor willful. As such, he prayed that order dated 24.08.2017, be recalled and suit be restored to its original number. Thereafter, he was advised to file the restoration application. 10.2 Lastly, he has deposed that his failure to impart instructions to his counsel, as well as, appearance before the Court was neither intentional nor willful. As such, he prayed that order dated 24.08.2017, be recalled and suit be restored to its original number. 10.3 In the cross-examination by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6, this witness has admitted that due to the ailment, he was not in a position to travel. Shyam Sunder had made negotiation with regard to the suit property and he is witness in the main Civil Suit. He admitted that apart from his wife Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, his brother Gopal Singh were co-plaintiffs. Both the co-plaintiffs are residing with him. He has admitted that except taking treatment from Dr. M.S. Thakur, he has not visited any government hospital. During the period of treatment, he remained admit in his clinic. This witness, feigned his ignorance about the period when he was hospitalized in the clinic of Dr. M.S. Thakur. Mr. Anand Sharma, was his counsel in the main suit. He deposed that he continuously remained in contact with his counsel, however, thereafter he remained uncommunicative. This witness has denied his signatures upon court notices Mark-A and Mark-B. 11. To rebut this evidence, the respondents examined RW-1 Sh. Mohinder Sharma, the then Bailiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Nalagarh. This witness has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Process Server in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kasauli. According to him, notices dated 29th July, 2017, Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-C, were issued in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012, titled as ‘Prem Singh and others Versus Indra Sharma and others’, These notices were served by him upon the persons, to whom said notices were issued at their village itself. He specifically deposed the name of village Chhatiyan, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. He identified his signatures on the report of service, which are encircled in red circles A, B and C, upon notices Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-C. The persons, upon whom, the notices were served, had duly signed the said notices and their signatures are encircled in circles D, E and F on Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-C. The persons, upon whom, the notices were served, had duly signed the said notices and their signatures are encircled in circles D, E and F on Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-C. 11.1 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has not obtained the signature of any witness as a proof of delivery of summons to the party concerned. Plaintiff Prem Singh is not his relative, but according to him, he is known to him. He has feigned ignorance that plaintiff Prem Singh remained ill from June, 2016 up to the year 2018. He denied other suggestions put to him, by suggesting that summons do not bear his signatures. He has also denied the suggestion that Ext. R-A, Ext. R-B and Ext. R-C do not contain the signatures of the plaintiffs. 12. This is the entire evidence. 13. Perusal of the record shows that the Civil Suit was instituted on 09th October, 2012 and was registered as Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012. After the completion of the pleadings, the issues were framed way back on 18.07.2013. Thereafter, the case remained on board for PWs. Subsequently, by moving OMP No. 397 of 2016, certain documents were sought to be produced on the file and on 16.11.2016, following order was passed by this Court:- “The learned counsel for defendant No. 8 has filed an application for placing on record certain documents. However, the learned counsel for the non applicants prays for some time to file a reply thereto. Permission granted. Be filed within four weeks. It is open for the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to institute an appropriate application for adding in the array of the defendants alienees of defendants No. 1 to 6 of the property in lieu whereof an exchange occurred with defendant No. 8. Also the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is permitted to institute an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the CPC against the defendants concerned who in the aforesaid manner infracted the order of this Court whereupon they stood mandated to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property. The aforesaid application(s) be filed within four weeks and reply thereto be filed within four weeks thereafter.” 14. The aforesaid application(s) be filed within four weeks and reply thereto be filed within four weeks thereafter.” 14. Thereafter, six effective opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to comply with the said order and thereafter, the case remained on board for the said purpose for about one and half years. Thereafter, on 18.07.2017, the counsel representing the plaintiffs has submitted the Court with regard to non-response of his communication by the plaintiffs. Consequently, on 18.07.2017, this Court has passed the following order while issuing Court notices for the plaintiffs:- “The learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ submits that the latters’ not responding to his repeated communications, regarding instructions which were to be remitted by them to him in respect of institution, if deemed fit, of an application for amendment(s), also, instructions for moving an appropriate application for impleadment of certain alienees. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ be served through Court notice for 24.08.2017, for theirs imparting necessary instructions to their counsel. List on 24.08.2017.” 15. As per order dated 24.08.2017, those Court notices were duly served and then, this Court has dismissed the suit in default, on 24.08.2017. 16. Thereafter, the OMP No. 204 of 2018, for restoration of the Civil Suit along with OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, for condonation of delay, was filed on 09.05.2018. 17. It is no longer res-integra that procedural laws are meant for advancement of justice and not to hamper the same. But, this does not mean that whatsoever has been pleaded in the application would be taken as gospel truth, nor, under the garb of liberal interpretation of procedural law, each and every assertion made in the application would be accepted as gospel truth to restore the suit, as, after the long battle, which was instituted in the year 2012, the lis was culminated by the dismissal of the suit in default, on account of the non-compliance of order dated 16.11.2016. After the dismissal of the suit, a valuable right has been accrued in favour of defendants, who were contesting the suit right from the inception of the lis, till the date when the suit was dismissed in default. The said right cannot be taken away so lightly. 18. Whenever a person is approaching the Court, it is expected from him to bring the true facts for the judicial scrutiny of this Court. The said right cannot be taken away so lightly. 18. Whenever a person is approaching the Court, it is expected from him to bring the true facts for the judicial scrutiny of this Court. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act i.e. OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, was instituted by applicant Prem Singh, and even the application does not bears the signature of applicant, but the same is supported by the affidavit of applicant Prem Singh. Moreover, in the present lis, apart from applicant Prem Singh, two other persons were impleaded as plaintiffs; one is wife of applicant Prem Singh, who, no doubt, has given her GPA to her husband Prem Singh, and another Gopal Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, who is not a stranger, but, real brother of applicant Prem Singh and residing in same village i.e. village Chhatiyan. The Civil Suit was signed by Prem Singh and Gopal Singh. Evidence of the plaintiffs was closed in this case on 30.11.2015. Thereafter, statements of two DWs were recorded and thereafter on 16.11.2016, orders were passed by this Court permitting the plaintiffs to move the application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC. 19. Even, the application bearing OMP No. 204 of 2018, which has been filed under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, has been filed by only plaintiff No.1 Prem Singh. The main thrust of the applicant in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is with regard to condoning the delay on the ground of his ailment, not the ailment of his brother. 20. In para 2 of the application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a plea has been taken that the applicant Prem Singh is also power of attorney holder of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, however, no such document has been placed on record, nor, such averments are there in the plaint, as plaintiff No. 2 Kaushalya Devi has filed the suit through her GPA i.e. applicant Prem Singh, who has been arrayed in the suit as plaintiff No. 1. However, no GPA/SPA of plaintiff No. 3, has been annexed with the application. 21. However, no GPA/SPA of plaintiff No. 3, has been annexed with the application. 21. Applicant-Prem Singh has taken a specific stand in the application that on 22.04.2018, Shyam Sunder (PW-2) had met his counsel, in connection with some other case, upon which, his counsel requested said Shyam Sunder to convey the decision of the suit, to the applicant. It would be apt to reproduce para 3 of the application. Consequently, the same is reproduced as under:- “That one fine morning that one of the client of the counsel on 22.04.2018, came in some other case from Kasauli, and he was requested to convey the dismissal in default of the above said Civil Suit due to the non-perusing and not replying the letters of the counsel. On the requested of the Counsel Sh. Shyam Sunder was requested to contact the plaintiff so that the appropriate application in the present suit may be filed in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court on 16.11.2016.” 22. Apart from this, he has taken a stand that on 26.04.2018, his counsel came to know about the ailment of applicant Prem Singh. When appeared in the witness box as AW-2, this witness has simply stated that he met Sh. Anand Sharma, Advocate, in the month of April, 2018, in connection with some tax matter and came to know about the fate of his Regular Second Appeal, and, thereafter he apprised the applicant about the fact that he is negligent in his personally attending the case. His deposition is totally silent about the fact that the counsel of the applicant requested him to convey the order dated 24.08.2017, to him, with a request to further convey the same to the applicant. 23. AW-2 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, is the star witness of the applicant, to bring his application for restoration of suit within limitation by pleading that he was the person, to whom, the counsel had requested to apprise the applicant about the fate of his case, but this witness, no where stated in his deposition on oath that on 26.08.2018, when he had met the counsel of the applicant, with whom, he wants to discuss the tax matter, as well as, to discuss the fate of his pending Regular Second Appeal. He (AW-2) was requested by the counsel for the applicant to convey him the fate of their Civil Suit. He (AW-2) was requested by the counsel for the applicant to convey him the fate of their Civil Suit. In the absence of any averment, according to which, AW-2 has apprised the applicant about the dismissal of his suit in default on 24.08.2017, then the stand of the applicant in the application qua the fact that said Shyam Sunder contacted him and conveyed him about the dismissal of the suit in default, cannot be accepted as gospel truth, as, Shyam Sunder has not deposed so, in his deposition. 24. The deposition i.e. “I informed the applicant that he is negligent in his personally attending his case”, does not substantiate the stand of the applicant qua receiving the alleged information regarding dismissal of suit through AW-2 Shyam Sunder, to him. 25. Applicant-Prem Singh when appeared in the witness box has miserably failed to point out as to when Shyam Sunder (AW-2) had apprised him about the dismissal of the suit. He has simply stated that in the year 2018, one Shyam Sunder met him and told that suit has been dismissed on 24.08.2017, for want of his personal appearance, whereas AW-2 has not uttered these words in his examination-in-chief. Rather, applicant has introduced a new story that after allegedly receiving the information from Shyam Sunder, when he had contacted his counsel, then the fate of his case was apprised to him, and thereafter, his counsel advised him to seek restoration of the suit. 26. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any cogent reason for not moving the application within the prescribed period of limitation, the contradictory stand, as taken by the applicant, as well as, his witness, is too short to condone the delay in moving the application. Although, it is no longer res-integra that liberal approach should be adopted by this Court while deciding the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but, this does not mean that whatsoever submissions, which even, do not appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court, should be accepted. 27. Although the term sufficient cause has no where been defined in the Limitation Act, but the same could be said to be a situation which is beyond the ordinary control of a prudent person. 28. 27. Although the term sufficient cause has no where been defined in the Limitation Act, but the same could be said to be a situation which is beyond the ordinary control of a prudent person. 28. As stated above, after the dismissal of the suit, a valuable right has been accrued in favour of the defendants. 29. Even otherwise, the conduct of the applicant, in the present case, also dis-entitles him from seeking the condonation of delay as Court notices, as per the orders passed by this Court, have duly been served upon the applicant, as well as, his co-plaintiffs. It is not the case of the applicant that Court notices were not served upon other two plaintiffs, nor plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have bothered to appear in the witness box, to depose that Court notices were not served upon them. His vague averments qua non service of the notice, in the absence of the evidence of two other plaintiffs cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Non-appearance of other two plaintiffs in the witness box, gives this Court an occasion to say that the case set up by the applicant is not true. 30. Although, a futile exercise has been made to put question upon Sh. Mohinder Sharma, Bailiff (RW-1) that he did not obtain the signatures of any witness, as a proof of delivery of summons to the party concerned, but, said suggestion is too short to be accepted, as plaintiff No. 3, would be the better person to appear and to depose that notices were not served upon him. His non-appearance would give an occasion for this Court to draw adverse inference against him. 31. Even applicant Prem Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has not deposed anything about the non service of the Court notices upon him. 32. Moreover, the proceedings, in the present case, were initiated by the plaintiffs by filing a Civil Suit on the original side jurisdiction of this Court. 31. Even applicant Prem Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has not deposed anything about the non service of the Court notices upon him. 32. Moreover, the proceedings, in the present case, were initiated by the plaintiffs by filing a Civil Suit on the original side jurisdiction of this Court. After passing the order dated 16.11.2016, as many as, six effective opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to move the application and when learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted to the Court that despite repeated communications, instructions were not imparted to him, then this Court had ordered to serve Court notices upon them, subsequently, the counsel for the plaintiffs was permitted to withdraw the Power of Attorney and suit of the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed in default. The counsel for the applicant has stated at bar before this Court on 18.07.2017, that despite various communications, instructions were not imparted to him. 33. In such situation, this Court is of the view that no plausible explanation, which would fall within the definition of “sufficient cause”, has been put forward by the applicant for condonation of delay. 34. Consequently, application under consideration is dismissed. OMP No. 204 of 2018 35. Vide order of the even date, passed in OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, delay in filing the application has not been condoned, as such, the present application is dismissed being time barred. 36. Pending application(s), if any, are also ordered to be disposed of, accordingly.