2026:HHC:5266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.174 of 2023 Decided on: 02 nd March, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumari ....Petitioner Versus Vipan Kumar (deceased) through LRs and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(c). Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of the present petition has laid challenge to the order dated 30.09.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.96 of 2018, in Case Registration 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.617/2018, titled, Raj Kumari vs. Vipan Kumar and others, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in 昀椀ling the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Order 22 Rule 3, 4 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts for adjudication of the present Revision Petition are that the petitioner had 昀椀led an application for restoration of claim petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.08.2013. 3. As per the order, the petitioner had submitted in examination-in-chief by way of an a昀케davit that she reiterates her pleadings. In cross-examination she had stated that her father-in-law had expired and thereafter her husband also expired, hence she had 昀椀led an application being daughter- in-law of deceased-Mansha Ram. 4. She had admitted in unequivocal words that she 3 was aware that the case had been dismissed, but could not 昀椀le the application earlier as her husband was ill and she could not contact her counsel. She had further admitted that she is not able to produce a witness in the claim petition when it was dismissed. In cross-examination, she also admitted that her father-in-law had expired 5 years ago and her husband had expired about 3 years ago, and she had come to know about the dismissal of her case about 3 years ago. 5. The petitioner has also examined one Bhagi Rath as AW-2, who had submitted that Mansha Ram had met with an accident and expired in the year 2013 and son of Mansha Ram was Jagat Ram, who was su昀昀ering from paralysis. He had admitted that the claim petition had been dismissed in the year 2013 and when Mansha Ram used to attend the Court hearing, the petitioner also used to accompany him. 6. The learned Tribunal below on the basis of the 4 evidence led by the petitioner had returned the 昀椀ndings that there is no justi昀椀cation for the delay of 5 years in 昀椀ling the application especially when the petitioner had admitted in cross-examination that she had been aware about the dismissal of the case 3 years ago. 7. Keeping in view the factum that the petitioner was aware of the dismissal of the petition in default and yet did not approach the Court immediately for restoration of the claim petition, the Tribunal had rightly recorded a 昀椀nding that the petitioner had failed to furnish any ground for condonation of delay in 昀椀ling the application 8. The Tribunal below had rightly disallowed the application 昀椀led by the petitioner for condonation of delay in 昀椀ling the application, and there is neither any illegality nor perversity in the said order, which requires interference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the present petition is devoid of 5 any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 02 nd March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge