2026:HHC:39119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1134 of 2026 in FAO(FC)ST No.28563 of 2026 Decided on: 14.09.2026 Prem Chand … applicant/ appellant. Versus Sunita Devi and others … Non-applicants/Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the applicant/ appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the non-applicants/ respondents : None. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Non-applicants/respondents stand served. None has put in appearance on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents. 2. By way of this application, prayer has been made by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per report of the Registry, the appeal is barred by 1 year, 3 months and 23 days. The applicant is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.03 of 2021, titled Sunita Devi & others versus Sh. Prem Chand, filed under Sections 18, 22 and 27 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which suit has been partly decreed by the learned Court below in the following terms:- “As an ups upshot of the findings reached at above, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:39119 suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with costs and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are held entitled to maintenance at the rate of 1200/- each per month from the defendant, ₹ payable with effect from the date of filing of the instant suit till attaining the age of majority. The decree shall be a charge upon the share of the defendant in the landed property entered in Khata No. 368, Khatauni No. 415, Khasra Nos. 1429, 1430, 1433, 3442/1450, 1456, 1462, 1530, 1601, 1643, 1695, 2016, 2863/1442, 2877/1679 Kita 13 measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas to the extent of 1/3 share measuring 8 Kanal 4 Marlas; Khata No. 371, Khatoni No. 418, Khasra Nos. 1426, 3280/1441, 3282/1509, Kita 3 measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas to the extent of 1/3 share measuring 0-09 Marlas; Khata No.430, Khatoni No.491, Khasra No. 1427 to the extent of 1421/6048 share measuring 0-10 Marlas as jamai 3.18 mal as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 of Tika Bhalwani, Mouza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP; and Khata No.1. Khatoni No.1, Khasra No. 1034, 1471, 1525, 1533, Kita 4, area measuring 7K-05 Marlas to the extent of share Prem Chand 1K-18 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 of Tika Manwin, Mouza Mewa. Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP. Rest of the prayer of the plaintiffs is declined. 43. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. 44. Decree sheet be prepared as per this judgment. 45. The file after due completion, be consigned to the record room.” 3 2026:HHC:39119 3. By way of the present proceedings, the applicant is assailing the said judgment and as the appeal is time-barred, an application has been filed for condonation of delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to Paras-2 to 4 of the application and submitted that on account of the reasons stated therein, a justifiable cause has been made out for condonation of delay and therefore, the application be allowed. 5. Having perused the averments made in the application as well as the judgment in issue, according to us, no justifiable reason has been culled out by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which delay is of more than 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days. 6. A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that the applicant was duly represented by his Counsel before the learned Court below. That being so, simply because it is averred in the application that the applicant is a senior citizen and not well educated, this does not confer any right upon the applicant either not to prefer an appeal within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter. 7. With the expiry of limitation, a valuable right has crystallized in favour of the non-applicant. The delay in filing the appeal is of more than 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days, which is a substantive delay. Further, as has been observed by us 4 2026:HHC:39119 hereinabove also, the reasons given in the application do not satisfy the test of justifiable reason so as to condone such a huge delay. The contention of the applicant that he came to know of the judgment only after he had received a notice in the execution petition cannot be believed. It was the duty of the applicant to have had followed the proceedings with his Counsel and because of the act of omission of the applicant, now the non-applicant cannot be taken by surprise by condoning such a huge delay. 8. Therefore, in light of the above observation, as there is no plausible reason to condone the huge delay of 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days in filing the appeal, present application is dismissed, so is the fate of the main appeal. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 14, 2026 (Rishi)