Rakesh Kumar vs. Kangra Central Co. Bank Ltd. & Ors. CMP(M) No.543 of 2026 13.08.2026 Present: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 3. CMP(M) No.543 of 2026 Applicant-Rakesh Kumar has filed the accompanying appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.81 of 2024, titled as, ‘Rakesh Kumar versus The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others’. 2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 25.09.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, which has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 105 of 2018, titled as, ‘The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. versus Rakesh Kumar and others’. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2024, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit, filed by respondent No.1, in the following terms: “Judged in the light of the above discussion and findings on the issues No.1 to 4, supra, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and accordingly the same is hereby decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants, jointly as well as severally, sum of Rs.2,40,210/- along with interest @11.75% p.a. and penal interest @ 2% from the date of institution of present suit till realization of the entire amount. Memo of costs be filed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the records.” 4. Since the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 71 days, whereas, as per the report of the Registry, delay is of 54 days. 5. The delay has mainly been sought to be condoned, on the ground, that the applicant is a rustic villager and an agriculturist by profession and as such, he was facing acute financial hardship and he made efforts to settle the matter with the bank under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. According to him, when, he had approached the bank authorities on 25.09.2025, it has been assured to him that the case would be considered sympathetically and due to this assurance, he remained under bonafide belief that his matter would be settled. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. 7. Application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1, has only contested, the application, whereas, respondents No.2 and 3 have not opted to put appearance. 9. Respondent No.1 has contested the application, on the ground, that the applicant could not point out any cause, much less, the sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. According to learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the applicant has miserably failed to make out a case, in his favour for condonation of delay. 10. Heard. 11. The suit for recovery has been decreed, by the learned trial Court and the same has been upheld, by the learned First Appellate Court. Reply is totally silent about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve in filing the appeal, after the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, on account of the reasons, as mentioned in the application. 12. Considering the low legal literacy of the Indian masses, the explanation, which has been given in the application cannot be thrown away, at this stage. 13. It is no longer res integra that while, deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a liberal approach, as the meritorious matter should be decided on merit and not on the basis of technicalities, i.e. limitation. 14. Considering all these facts, application under consideration is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. RSA No._________of 2026 15. Vide order of the even date on application bearing CMP(M) No.543 of 2026, delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be condoned. 16. Appeal be registered. CMPST No.10119 of 2026 17. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing. 18. List on 24.09.2026. 19. Till then, execution of the decree dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.105 of 2018, titled as Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. versus Rakesh Kumar and others, is ordered to be stayed, subject to the condition that the entire awarded amount, along with up to date interest, be deposited within a period of six weeks, from today. (Virender Singh) Judge August 13, 2026 (subhash)