Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:36674 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 70 of 2026 Decided on : 27.08.2026 Gian Chand
…Petitioner Versus Lachhman Singh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents : Mr.Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. None for respondents No. 5 & 8 to 13.
Virender Singh, Judge
(Oral) On the last date of hearing, notices issued against all the respondents, received back after due service. However, today, neither respondents No. 5 & 8 to 13, have not put appearance, nor their counsel is present. Further wait is not justifiable.
2. PetitionerGian Chand has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the Court of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:36674 learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’), whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in CMA No. 60/2024, titled as “Gian Chand Vs Lachhman Singh”, moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned first appellate Court.
4.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, annexed with the petition, are that applicant Gian Chand and six others, have filed an appeal against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundernagar, dated 08.05.2023, in CMA No. 42VI/2023, titled as ‘Gian Chand & Ors. Vs Lachhman Singh & Ors.’. 4.1 As per the applicant, he, along with the respondents, is cosharer and coowner of the land bearing Khewat No. 19, Khatauni No. 19, 20, Khasra Nos. 60, 73, 107, 111, 112, 117, 119, 121, 124, 126, 138, 154, 156, 255, 264, 265, 270, 351, 271, Kita 19 measuring 400014
3 2026:HHC:36674 bighas, and Khewat No. 20, Khatauni No. 21, Khasra No. 75, which is now numbered as 1146/75, measuring 0210 09 bighas, total area measuring 421103 bighas, situated in Village Chamukha/41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 4.2 Feeling aggrieved from the partition proceedings, applicant has preferred the appeal before Sub Divisional Collector, Sundernagar. Thereafter, he filed the revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and his revision was also dismissed. Subsequently, he has assailed the said order before the Financial Commissioner. Since, the partition proceedings were conducted by revenue Courts, in violation of the procedural safeguards, as such, those proceedings were stated to be vitiated. As such, applicant filed Civil Suit No. 88/2023, dated 24.02.2023, titled as ‘Gian Chand and others Vs Lachhman Singh and others’, before the learned trial Court, seeking the declaration that the partition proceedings conducted before the revenue Courts, are null and void. 4.3 In the said suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been filed seeking status quo and
4 2026:HHC:36674 to restrain the respondents from causing any interference over the suit land. Said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, on 08.05.2023, and thereafter, the said
order has been assailed by way of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, before the learned first appellate Court. 4.4 The appeal was filed after a delay of eight months. As such, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed. The said application has been dismissed, vide order dated 22.07.2024, which is being assailed before this Court. 5. The order has been assailed, on the ground, that the learned first appellate Court has adopted a hyper technical approach, while the Courts must adopt a liberal and justiceoriented approach. According to the applicant, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 6. On the grounds of appeal, it has been argued by Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the petitionerapplicant, that the present petition may kindly be allowed, by setting aside the order passed by learned first appellate Court, on 22.07.2024, and the
5 2026:HHC:36674 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, may kindly be allowed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, has opposed the prayer, on the ground, that the applicant is in habit of initiating the litigation, with a view to hamper the proceedings of partition, and the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case, which would fall within the preview of ‘sufficient cause’. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. The applicant has assailed the order dated 08.05.2023, passed by the learned trial Court, by way of which, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been dismissed. 9. Admittedly, said appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, has been filed. Copy of the said application has been annexed with the present petition. In this case, delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicant No. 1, is serving in private company at Baddi and as such, he could not consult his counsel well in time. 6 2026:HHC:36674 Thereafter, he came to know about the said order, in the month of February, 2024. He visited his house. Thereafter, he consulted his Advocate and filed the appeal, along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, after a gap of eight months.
Application is duly supported by the affidavit of Gian Chand. 10. As per the order dated 22.07.2024, when put to notice, this application has been contested on the ground that there are six applicants and any of the applicants would have preferred the appeal. 11. The learned first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, vide order dated 22.07.2024. 12. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the applicant, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and he has thereafter assailed the said
order, by filing the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The
order is totally silent about the fact as to what object the applicant is going to achieve, in not filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do, for the reasons, as mentioned in the
7 2026:HHC:36674 application, more particularly that, he was serving in private company at Baddi.
13. The order dated 22.07.2024, is totally silent as to what was the material before learned first appellate Court to conclude that the process of law should not be abused and justice should not be made casualty in the hands of some unscrupulous litigants. While deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach has to be adopted, as the matter should be decided on merits and not on technicalities, such as limitation.
14. Even, considering the fact that the applicant could not contact his counsel for eight months, does not disentitle him from seeking the relief for condonation of delay, as for the delay, the other party can be compensated in terms of money.
15. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the order passed by learned first appellate Court, does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as this Court is not in agreement with the reasons, so assigned by the learned first appellate Court, for
8 2026:HHC:36674 dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
16. In view of the discussion made above, the present petition is allowed, order dated 22.07.2024, is set aside and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed, however, subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.
18. The parties to the lis are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.09.2026 at 10:00 am. On that day, applicant Gian Chand, will tender the cost to the respondents.
(Virender Singh) 27th August, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)