Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17607 (HP)

THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS v. Dharmesh Sharma and others

CMP.M/157/2026 · 2026-07-24

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item No. D-8 State of H. P. & Anr. vs. Dharmesh Sharma & Ors. CMP(M) No. 157 of 2026 24.07.2026 Present: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants/appellants/State. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Kaundal, Advocate, for the respondents. The present application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal, which is stated to be barred by 1 year 86 days, as per the office report, and 1 year, 1 month and 22 days, as per application. 2. The grounds given in the application are that judgment was passed on 06.09.2024 and the letter had been sent on 09.09.2024 itself for seeking necessary guidance. Certified copy of the judgment was then applied on 08.10.2025 and the same was delivered on 20.11.2025. A decision was taken to file a review petition, which was dismissed on 04.07.2025. After dismissal of the review petition, the matter was sent to the Government for further advice and the Government had conveyed its decision to file a Letters Patent Appeal vide letter dated 27.09.2025 and the appeal thereafter had been filed on 02.12.2025 and, thus, the delay had occurred in filing the appeal. 3. Keeping in view the fact that for almost over a year, the period spent was consumed in the review petition, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been carved out to condone the delay. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the delay application on the ground that the judgment already stands implemented and the benefit of pay fixation had already been granted after execution, the review petition had been filed and there is a huge delay. 5. Keeping in view the settled principle of law laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Smt. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, that each and every day’s delay is not to be explained, we are of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be allowed as sufficient cause has been made out. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. ______ of 2026 6. Appeal be registered. 7. To come up for consideration on 11.09.2026. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 24th July, 2026(sanjeev)