SIDHANT SHARMA Versus SMILY MAHAJAN CMP.M-1005 of 2026 17.09.2026 Present: Ms. Drishti Sirswal, Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent. CMP.M-1005 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/ appellant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal, which is barred by limitation. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant application, Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent. She states that she does not intend to file reply and shall have no objection in case prayer made in the application is allowed. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying appeal does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/appellant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned. In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of. Be registered. FAO No. _________ of 2026 Notice. Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondent. List for admission before appropriate Bench after two weeks. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge September 17, 2026 (Yogesh Jaswal), (sunil) Judge