2026:HHC:9413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 204 of 2018 and OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 in C.S. No. 104 of 2012 Reserved on : 02.03.2026 Decided on    : 31.03.2026 Prem Singh & Others …Applicants Versus Indira Sharma and Others …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1    Yes. For the applicants : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr.   Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.   P.S.   Goverdhan,   Senior Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr.   Rakesh Thakur,   Advocate,   for   respondents No. 1 to 5. Name   of   respondent   No.   6,   vide order   dated   16.10.2025   stands deleted. Respondent No. 7 already ex­parte. Mr.   Raman   Sethi,   Advocate,   for respondent No. 8. Virender Singh, Judge 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:9413 OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 Applicant­Prem   Singh   has   filed   these applications   for   restoration   of   his   Civil   Suit  No.  104   of 2012, after condoning the delay in moving the application. 2. OMP   No.   204   of   2018   has   been   filed   for restoration of the Civil Suit, under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4, read   with   Section   151   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure, whereas OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 has been filed under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above two applications,   as   borne   out   from   the   record,   may   be summed up, as under:­ 3.1 Applicant­Prem Singh and two others have filed the Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 for Specific Performance, against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in default on 24.08.2017. On that day, this Court had passed the following order:­ “Court notices issued to the plaintiffs are reported to be served upon them, however, they neither put in appearance in person nor the counsel appearing for them under a Vakalatnama holds any instructions from them in respect of their meting compliance with the   orders   recorded   by this   Court   on 16.11.2016, thereupon   the   learned   counsel   for   the   plaintiff   is constrained   to   seek   permission   of   this   Court   to 3 2026:HHC:9413 withdraw his power of attorney for the plaintiffs. He is permitted to do so. Consequently,   the   plaintiffs’   suit   is   dismissed   in default. Court   fee(s)   in   accordance   with   law   be refunded   to   the   plaintiffs. The   pending application(s),   if   any,   are   also   disposed   of. No costs.” 3.2 Applicant­Prem Singh has now filed OMP No. 204   of   2018,   for   restoration   of   his   suit,   which   was dismissed in default. 3.3 Since, the said application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved. 3.4 The restoration of the suit, after condoning the delay, has been sought, mainly, on the ground, that after passing the order dated 24.08.2017, the counsel for the plaintiffs   has   sent   the   information   with   regard   to   the dismissal of the suit, but, no response has been received from plaintiff No. 1. 3.5 On   22.04.2018,   one   client,   of   the   counsel representing   applicant­Prem   Singh,   who,   as   per   the application,   was   also   witness   to   the   agreement   to   sell, contacted the counsel in connection with some other case, then,   the   said   client   was   requested   by   the   counsel   to 4 2026:HHC:9413 inform the plaintiffs about the fate of the present Civil Suit, who, accordingly informed applicant Prem Singh. The said person had also found that Prem Singh is suffering from number   of   ailments   and   remained   confine   to   bed. Applicant was also found to be suffering from Ulcer and Spinal problem. However, after the receipt of information, he immediately requested the Doctor to provide the medical certificate   with   regard   to   his   ailment. Applicant   Prem Singh   remained   under   treatment   with   Paras   Ayurvedic Centre, from where the certificate was issued. The Doctor of the said hospital has also advised him to have complete bed rest. 3.6 It is further case of the applicant that he could not comply with the order dated 16.11.2016, due to his ailment and he was also having no knowledge of the same. He could not also contact his Advocate on account of his ill health. 3.7 Another ground, upon which, restoration of the suit has also been sought is that the applicant had not received the Court notices, when his counsel had sought the withdrawal of his Vakalatnama. Reasserting the fact that the applicant was not aware about the proceedings, 5 2026:HHC:9413 nor, received any summons from the Court, a prayer has been made to restore the suit to its original number after condoning the delay. 3.8 The delay in moving the application has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground, upon which, the   restoration   of   the   suit   has   been   sought. In   the application, it has been pleaded that one of the clients of his counsel, on 22.04.2018, visited the counsel, who had represented the applicant and it has been conveyed to the said client to inform about the dismissal of the suit in default to the applicant, upon which, said Shyam Sunder contacted the applicant and conveyed him about the orders passed by this Court on 16.11.2016. 3.9 It has also been pleaded in the application that on 26.04.2018, the counsel of the plaintiffs came to know from   Sh. Shyam   Sunder,   resident   of   Kasauli,   who   was witness to the agreement to sell, about the ailment of the applicant. It has also been apprised to the counsel of the plaintiffs that the applicant is under treatment w.e.f. June, 2016. Thereafter, on telephonic conversation, it was also found that the applicant was unable to come to Shimla. Thereafter, applicant had produced the certificates issued 6 2026:HHC:9413 by the Doctor dated 24.04.2018, 06.11.2017, 16.06.2017 and 31.10.2016, through Sh. Shyam Sunder. 3.10 Thereafter,   the   applications   have   been prepared,   which   were   forwarded   to   the   applicant   for signatures and attestation on 28.04.2018 and same were received   back   on   05.05.2018,   but   application   under Section 5 of Limitation Act, was not received, as the same was lost during transit. Thereafter, application was again re­drafted   and   sent   for   signatures   and   attestation   on 06.05.2018, which was received back on 09.05.2018. 3.11 On the basis of above facts, delay in moving the application has been sought to be condoned. 4. When put to notice, OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, has been contested, on the ground, that the applicant/ plaintiffs   had   not   complied   with   the   order   dated 16.11.2016. Not only this, the applicant deliberately failed to put appearance before this Court on 24.08.2017, despite service of the Court notices. According to the respondents, the notices were served upon the plaintiffs in person on 28.07.2017. In this regard, respondents relied upon the report of Registry dated 21.08.2017. 7 2026:HHC:9413 4.1 It   is   their   further   case   that   applicant   Prem Singh had received the summons on behalf of his wife Smt. Kaushalya. Plaintiff No. 3 Gopal Singh was also served in person and they had failed to put appearance before the Court, despite service of summons of this Court. As such, this Court has rightly dismissed the suit in default. 4.2 It   is   also   their   case   that   on   that   day   i.e. 24.08.2017, counsel representing  the plaintiffs was  also present   and   his   presence   was   duly   marked. The allegations, as contained in the application, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, are also stated to be concocted facts. According to the respondents, the applicant is unable to explain the delay, in the present case. The order dated 24.08.2017, is also stated to be well within the knowledge of the counsel representing them, as well as, other two applicants i.e. Smt. Kaushalaya and Gopal Singh. 4.3 All   these   facts   have   been   pleaded   to demonstrate that if it is assumed that if applicant was not feeling   well,   then,   other   two   plaintiffs   had   ample opportunity to contact their counsel or to appear before this Court after receiving the summons for 24.08.2017. 8 2026:HHC:9413 4.4 Other allegations, as levelled in the application, have also been controverted/disputed. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 6. Non­applicant/defendant   No.   8   filed   the separate reply and the application has also been contested on the similar grounds. 7. Following issues were framed by this Court in OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 and OMP No. 204 of 2018, on 19.09.2018:­ 1. Whether   the   delay   in   filing   the   application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been sufficiently explained? OPP 2. Relief. 8. After framing of the issues, the applicant has examined AW­1, Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has deposed that after superannuating from the services, he had started his private practice. Applicant Prem Singh visited him in the year   2016,   with   the   pain   in   lower   back   and   Ulcerative colitis. Due to the ailment, the patient was unable to make easy movement and also, it was difficult for him to travel. Applicant remained under his treatment, since June, 2016, 9 2026:HHC:9413 till the date he appeared in the witness box i.e. 18.03.2019. He issued the certificate Ext. AW1/A. 8.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2016, applicant   Prem   Singh   was   in   critical   condition   and   for panchkarma treatment, he visited his clinic for about 8 to 10 times, and sometimes, AW­1 used to visit his home. 8.2 Lastly, he has deposed that without the help of attendant, it was not possible for the applicant to visit his clinic. 8.3 In the cross­examination by learned counsel for defendants­non­applicants   No.   1   to   6,   this   witness   has admitted that in the certificate Ext. AW1/A, he has not mentioned the period of bed rest. This witness does not maintain   the   record   with   regard   to   OPDs. However, according   to   him,   he   maintained   the   entries   of   the applicant, however, said register has not been brought, as the same was not summoned. He further admitted that registration number of the patient has not been entered in Ext. AW1/A.     However,   he   voluntarily   stated   that inadvertently,   he   failed   to   mention   the   same   in   the prescription slip. 10 2026:HHC:9413 8.4 In the cross­examination by learned counsel for non­applicant No. 8, this witness has admitted that he has not obtained patient signatures on the OPD slips. 9. AW­2, Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, deposed that he had engaged Mr. Anand Sharma, as his Advocate and he   met   him   in   the   month   of   April,   2018. Mr. Anand Sharma   was   engaged   as   a   counsel   to   seek   advise   with respect to a tax matter. This witness had also come to him to   know   about   the   fate   of   his   Regular   Second   Appeal pending before this Court. 9.1 In   addition   to   this,   he   is   witness   to   the agreement to sell, whereof, decree for Specific Performance was claimed on 26.04.2018 by the applicant. This witness has informed the applicant that he is negligent in attending his   case. However,   when   he   visited   the   applicant,   he noticed that he was in critical condition. It is his further case that applicant is critically ill and when he had to travel,   the   vehicle   had   to   be   stopped   after   every   10­15 minutes. 9.2 According to this witness, he had brought the applicant   on   17.03.2019   and   lodged   him   in   a   hotel   in 11 2026:HHC:9413 Shimla. Lastly, he has deposed that he could not inform him earlier, as he had visited his son at London (U.K.). 9.3 In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has admitted that he had appeared as PW, in the present case, however,   he   has   feigned   his   ignorance   about   other plaintiffs, who had instituted the case. He has admitted that   brother   of   the   applicant   has   been   arrayed   as   co­ plaintiff in the suit. His wife has also been arrayed as co­ plaintiff,   but   voluntarily   stated   that   she   must   have executed the power of attorney, in favour of the applicant. 10. Applicant­Prem Singh appeared in the witness box as AW­3. According to this witness, he had filed the suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell, in the year 2012. In the said suit, evidence of the plaintiff was completed   and   thereafter,   the   case   was   listed   for   DWs. However,   prior   to   the   date   fixed   i.e.   16.11.2016,   this witness had fallen ill and ailment was Ulcer colitis and damage of spinal cord. He remained under treatment with Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has proved the medical summary as Ext. AW1/A.     He   had   taken   the   treatment   from   Paras Ayurvedic Center, being run by Dr. M.S. Thakur. 12 2026:HHC:9413 10.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2018, one Shyam Sunder, who made negotiations to sell the suit property, told him that the suit filed by them has been dismissed   in   default   on   24.08.2017,   for   want   of   his personal appearance. He has requested him to contact his counsel and after receiving intimation from him, when this witness, contacted his counsel, he has also been apprised about   the   order,   which   was   passed   on   24.08.2017. Thereafter,   he   was   advised   to   file   the   restoration application. 10.2 Lastly, he has deposed that his failure to impart instructions to his counsel, as well as, appearance before the Court was neither intentional nor willful. As such, he prayed that order dated 24.08.2017, be recalled and suit be restored to its original number. 10.3 In the cross­examination by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6, this witness has admitted that due to the ailment, he was not in a position to travel. Shyam Sunder   had   made   negotiation   with   regard   to   the   suit property and he is witness in the main Civil Suit. He admitted that apart from his wife Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, his brother Gopal Singh were co­plaintiffs. Both the co­ 13 2026:HHC:9413 plaintiffs  are  residing   with   him. He   has  admitted   that except taking treatment from Dr. M.S. Thakur, he has not visited   any   government   hospital. During   the   period   of treatment, he remained admit in his clinic. This witness, feigned   his   ignorance   about   the   period   when   he   was hospitalized in the clinic of Dr. M.S. Thakur. Mr. Anand Sharma, was his counsel in the main suit. He deposed that he continuously remained in contact with his counsel, however, thereafter he remained uncommunicative. This witness   has   denied   his   signatures   upon   court   notices Mark­A and Mark­B. 11. To   rebut   this   evidence,   the   respondents examined RW­1 Sh. Mohinder Sharma, the then Bailiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Nalagarh. This witness has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Process Server in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kasauli. According to him, notices dated 29th  July, 2017, Ext. R­A, Ext. R­B and Ext. R­C, were issued in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012, titled as ‘Prem Singh and others Versus Indra Sharma and others’,   These notices were served by him upon the persons, to whom said notices were issued at their village itself. He specifically deposed the name of 14 2026:HHC:9413 village Chhatiyan, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.  He identified his signatures on the report of service, which are encircled in red circles A, B and C, upon notices Ext. R­A, Ext. R­B and Ext. R­C.   The persons, upon whom, the notices were served, had duly signed the said notices and their signatures are encircled in circles D, E and F on Ext. R­A, Ext. R­B and Ext. R­C. 11.1 In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has admitted that he has not obtained the signature of any witness as a proof of delivery of summons to the party concerned. Plaintiff Prem Singh is not his relative, but according to him, he is known to him. He has feigned ignorance that plaintiff Prem Singh remained ill from June, 2016 up to the year 2018. He denied other suggestions put to him, by suggesting that summons do not bear his signatures. He has also denied the suggestion that Ext. R­ A, Ext. R­B and Ext. R­C do not contain the signatures of the plaintiffs. 12. This is the entire evidence. 13. Perusal of the record shows that the Civil Suit was instituted on 09th October, 2012 and was registered as Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012. After the completion of the 15 2026:HHC:9413 pleadings,   the   issues   were   framed   way   back   on 18.07.2013. Thereafter, the case remained on board for PWs. Subsequently,  by  moving  OMP  No.  397 of 2016, certain documents were sought to be produced on the file and  on  16.11.2016,  following   order  was   passed  by  this Court:­ “The learned counsel for defendant No. 8 has filed an   application   for   placing   on   record   certain documents. However, the learned counsel for the non applicants prays for some time to file a reply thereto. Permission granted. Be filed within four weeks. It is open for the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to institute an appropriate application for adding in the array of the defendants alienees of defendants No. 1 to  6  of   the  property in  lieu  whereof  an   exchange occurred  with  defendant  No. 8. Also  the  learned counsel for the plaintiffs is permitted to institute an application   under   Order   39   Rule   2(a)   of   the   CPC against   the   defendants   concerned   who   in   the aforesaid manner infracted the order of this Court whereupon they stood mandated to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property. The   aforesaid   application(s)   be   filed   within   four weeks and reply thereto be filed within four weeks thereafter.” 14. Thereafter, six effective opportunities were given to   the   plaintiffs   to   comply   with   the   said   order   and thereafter, the case remained on board for the said purpose for about one and half years. Thereafter, on 18.07.2017, the counsel representing the plaintiffs has submitted the Court with regard to non­response of his communication 16 2026:HHC:9413 by the plaintiffs. Consequently, on 18.07.2017, this Court has passed the following order while issuing Court notices for the plaintiffs:­ “The learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ submits that the   latters’   not   responding   to   his   repeated communications, regarding instructions which were to be remitted by them to him in respect of institution, if  deemed  fit, of  an  application for amendment(s), also,   instructions   for   moving   an   appropriate application   for   impleadment   of   certain   alienees. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ be served through Court notice for 24.08.2017, for theirs imparting necessary instructions to their counsel. List on 24.08.2017.” 15. As   per   order   dated   24.08.2017,   those   Court notices   were   duly   served   and   then,   this   Court   has dismissed the suit in default, on 24.08.2017. 16. Thereafter,   the   OMP   No.   204   of   2018,   for restoration of the Civil Suit along with OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, for condonation of delay, was filed on 09.05.2018. 17. It is no longer res­integra that procedural laws are meant for advancement of justice and not to hamper the same. But, this does not mean that whatsoever has been pleaded in the application would be taken as gospel truth,   nor,   under   the   garb   of   liberal   interpretation   of procedural   law,   each   and   every   assertion   made   in   the application would be accepted as gospel truth to restore the suit, as, after the long battle, which was instituted in 17 2026:HHC:9413 the year 2012, the lis was culminated by the dismissal of the suit in default, on account of the non­compliance of order dated 16.11.2016.  After the dismissal of the suit, a valuable right has been accrued in favour of defendants, who were contesting the suit right from the inception of the lis, till the date when the suit was dismissed in default. The said right cannot be taken away so lightly. 18. Whenever a person is approaching the Court, it is expected from him to bring the true facts for the judicial scrutiny of this Court.  The application under Section 5 of the   Limitation   Act   i.e.   OMP(M)   No.   17   of   2018,   was instituted   by   applicant   Prem   Singh,   and   even   the application does not bears the signature of applicant, but the same is supported by the affidavit of applicant Prem Singh.  Moreover, in the present lis, apart from applicant Prem   Singh,   two   other   persons   were   impleaded   as plaintiffs; one is wife of applicant Prem Singh, who, no doubt, has given her GPA to her husband Prem Singh, and another Gopal Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, who is not a stranger, but, real brother of applicant Prem Singh and residing in same village i.e. village Chhatiyan.   The Civil Suit was signed by Prem Singh and Gopal Singh.  Evidence 18 2026:HHC:9413 of the plaintiffs was closed in this case on 30.11.2015. Thereafter,   statements   of   two   DWs   were   recorded   and thereafter on 16.11.2016, orders were passed by this Court permitting   the   plaintiffs   to   move   the   application   under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC. 19. Even, the application bearing OMP No. 204 of 2018, which has been filed under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, has been filed by only plaintiff No. 1 Prem Singh. The main thrust of the applicant in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is with regard to condoning the delay on the ground of his ailment, not the ailment of his brother. 20. In para 2 of the application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a plea has been taken that the applicant Prem Singh is also power of attorney holder of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, however, no such document has been placed on record, nor, such averments are there in the plaint, as plaintiff No. 2 Kaushalya Devi has filed the suit through her GPA i.e. applicant Prem Singh, who has been arrayed in the suit as plaintiff No. 1. However, no GPA/SPA of plaintiff No. 3, has been annexed with the application. 19 2026:HHC:9413 21. Applicant­Prem   Singh   has   taken   a   specific stand   in   the   application   that   on   22.04.2018,   Shyam Sunder (PW­2) had met his counsel, in connection with some other case, upon which, his counsel requested said Shyam Sunder to convey the decision of the suit, to the applicant. It would be apt to reproduce para 3 of the application. Consequently,   the   same   is   reproduced   as under:­ “That one fine morning that one of the client of the counsel   on   22.04.2018,   came   in   some   other   case from Kasauli, and he was requested to convey the dismissal in default of the above said Civil Suit due to the non­perusing and not replying the letters of the counsel. On the requested of the Counsel Sh. Shyam Sunder was requested to contact the plaintiff so that the appropriate application in the present suit may be filed in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court on 16.11.2016.” 22. Apart from this, he has taken a stand that on 26.04.2018, his counsel came to know about the ailment of applicant Prem Singh. When appeared in the witness box as AW­2, this witness has simply stated that he met Sh. Anand Sharma, Advocate, in the month of April, 2018, in connection with some tax matter and came to know about the fate of his Regular Second Appeal, and, thereafter he apprised the applicant about the fact that he is negligent in his personally attending the case. His deposition is totally 20 2026:HHC:9413 silent   about   the   fact   that   the   counsel   of   the   applicant requested him to convey the order dated 24.08.2017, to him,   with  a  request  to   further   convey   the  same  to  the applicant. 23. AW­2   Shyam   Sunder   Aggarwal,   is   the   star witness   of   the   applicant,   to   bring   his   application   for restoration of suit within limitation by pleading that he was the person, to whom, the counsel had requested to apprise the applicant about the fate of his case, but this witness, no   where   stated   in   his   deposition   on   oath   that   on 26.08.2018, when he had met the counsel of the applicant, with whom, he wants to discuss the tax matter, as well as, to discuss the fate of his pending Regular Second Appeal. He (AW­2) was requested by the counsel for the applicant to convey him the fate of their Civil Suit. In the absence of any averment, according to which, AW­2 has apprised the applicant   about   the   dismissal   of   his   suit   in   default   on 24.08.2017,   then   the   stand   of   the   applicant   in   the application qua the fact that said Shyam Sunder contacted him and conveyed him about the dismissal of the suit in default, cannot be accepted as gospel truth, as, Shyam Sunder has not deposed so, in his deposition. 21 2026:HHC:9413 24. The   deposition   i.e.   “I   informed   the   applicant that he is negligent in his personally attending his case”, does   not   substantiate   the   stand   of   the   applicant   qua receiving   the   alleged   information   regarding   dismissal   of suit through AW­2 Shyam Sunder, to him. 25. Applicant­Prem   Singh   when   appeared   in   the witness box has miserably failed to point out as to when Shyam   Sunder   (AW­2)   had   apprised   him   about   the dismissal of the suit. He has simply stated that in the year 2018, one Shyam Sunder met him and told that suit has been dismissed on 24.08.2017, for want of his personal appearance, whereas AW­2 has not uttered these words in his examination­in­chief. Rather, applicant has introduced a new story that after allegedly receiving the information from Shyam Sunder, when he had contacted his counsel, then   the   fate   of   his   case   was   apprised   to   him,   and thereafter, his counsel advised him to seek restoration of the suit. 26. In   view   of   the   discussions   made   above,   this Court is of the view that in the absence of any cogent reason for not moving the application within the prescribed period of limitation, the contradictory stand, as taken by 22 2026:HHC:9413 the   applicant,   as   well   as,   his   witness,   is   too   short   to condone the delay in moving the application. Although, it is no longer res­integra that liberal approach should be adopted by this Court while deciding the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but, this does not mean that whatsoever submissions, which even, do not appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court, should be accepted. 27. Although   the   term   sufficient   cause   has   no where been defined in the Limitation Act, but the same could   be   said   to   be   a   situation   which   is   beyond   the ordinary control of a prudent person. 28. As stated above, after the dismissal of the suit, a   valuable   right   has   been   accrued   in   favour   of   the defendants. 29. Even otherwise, the conduct of the applicant, in the present case, also dis­entitles him from seeking the condonation of delay as Court notices, as per the orders passed   by   this   Court,   have   duly   been   served   upon   the applicant, as well as, his co­plaintiffs. It is not the case of the   applicant   that   Court   notices   were   not   served   upon other   two   plaintiffs,   nor   plaintiffs   No.   2   and   3   have bothered   to   appear   in   the   witness   box,   to   depose   that 23 2026:HHC:9413 Court   notices   were   not   served   upon   them. His   vague averments qua non service of the notice, in the absence of the evidence of two other plaintiffs cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Non­appearance of other two plaintiffs in the witness box, gives this Court an occasion to say that the case set up by the applicant is not true. 30. Although, a futile exercise has been made to put question upon Sh. Mohinder Sharma, Bailiff (RW­1) that he did not obtain the signatures of any witness, as a proof of delivery of summons to the party concerned, but, said suggestion is too short to be accepted, as plaintiff No. 3, would be the better person to appear and to depose that notices were not served upon him. His non­appearance would   give   an   occasion   for   this   Court   to   draw   adverse inference against him. 31. Even applicant Prem Singh, in his examination­ in­chief,  has not deposed anything about the non service of the Court notices upon him. 32. Moreover, the proceedings, in the present case, were initiated by the plaintiffs by filing a Civil Suit on the original side jurisdiction of this Court. After passing the order   dated   16.11.2016,   as   many   as,   six   effective 24 2026:HHC:9413 opportunities   were   given   to   the   plaintiffs   to   move   the application and when learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs   submitted   to   the   Court   that   despite   repeated communications, instructions were not imparted to him, then this Court had ordered to serve Court notices upon them,   subsequently,   the   counsel   for   the   plaintiffs   was permitted to withdraw the Power of Attorney and suit of the plaintiffs   was   ordered   to   be   dismissed   in   default.     The counsel   for   the   applicant   has   stated   at   bar   before   this Court on 18.07.2017, that despite various communications, instructions were not imparted to him. 33. In such situation, this Court is of the view that no   plausible   explanation,   which   would   fall   within   the definition of “sufficient cause”, has been put forward by the applicant for condonation of delay. 34. Consequently, application under consideration is dismissed. OMP No. 204 of 2018 35. Vide order of the even date, passed in OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, delay in filing the application has not been condoned, as such, the present application is dismissed being time barred. 25 2026:HHC:9413 36. Pending application(s), if any, are also ordered to be disposed of, accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge 31st March, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)