2026:HHC:35223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18448 of 2025 Decided on: 20th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rohit Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Amar Deep, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent No.3, dismissing petitioner’s appeal preferred under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (in short ‘the Act’) against the award dated 27.08.2021 on the ground of being barred by limitation. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35223 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he got a work visa on 21.10.2014 from Qatar. Petitioner left for Qatar on 09.12.2014. He came back to his native place during the year 2019 and became aware of respondent No.4-Society having served recovery notices upon him on account of some loan allegedly taken by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had not taken the loans from respondent No.4. He, therefore, instituted Civil Suit No.900-1 of 2021/2019 on 26.07.2019. The respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The application was allowed and vide order dated 24.02.2022, learned Civil Court rejected the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the first time, petitioner became aware of passing of arbitral award dated 27.08.2021 against him under Section 72 of the Act from the contents of the application that was instituted by the respondents in the civil suit seeking rejection of the plaint. The said arbitral award was not passed in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner had not been summoned by the Arbitrator and had no knowledge of passing of such award prior to receipt of the application 3 2026:HHC:35223 moved by the respondents seeking rejection of the plaint. On becoming aware of the award dated 27.08.2021, petitioner laid challenge to it by instituting the appeal under Section 93 of the Act before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 though considered the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation2 and construed the prescribed limitation period of 90 days having been extended upto 01.06.2022, however, considering that petitioner’s appeal had actually been filed on 27.07.2022, held it beyond the condonable period and accordingly dismissed the same. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the case file, it becomes evident that respondent No.3 has mechanically considered the grievance of the petitioner for condoning the delay in institution of the appeal. The petitioner has projected with justification that he was not aware about passing of the arbitral award dated 27.08.2021; That the same came to his knowledge only through the application moved by the respondents seeking rejection of his plaint. There is no discussion in the impugned order of such reasoning offered by the petitioner, 2 Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 4 2026:HHC:35223 which the face of record, has justified. Merely because in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation2, the limitation period for filing all appeals had been extended till 01.06.2022, cannot be construed to mean that other valid reasons, if offered by the applicant for further extending the limitation period, are not required to be gone into. Petitioner has amply justified the delay in instituting the appeal. It is well settled that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay. It is the cause for delay that has been propounded and will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of ‘sufficient cause’, irrespective of the length of delay, same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned (Ref.: Mool Chandra Versus Union of India and another3). 5. In view of above, the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. Parties, 3 (2025) 1 SCC 625 5 2026:HHC:35223 through their learned counsel, are directed to remain present before respondent No.3 on 07.09.2026. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 20, 2026 Judge Mukesh