( 2026:HHC:4278 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.303 of 2025 Decided on: 24.02.2026 Kundan Lal (deceased) through his ....Appellants LRs Salochana Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. : Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure A-I), passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5773 of 2023, titled Kundan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was delayed by three and a half 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 years against the order passed in appeal on 29.10.2019 (Annexure P-9) under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was further directed against an earlier order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Award as such had been passed by the Arbitrator. 2. While issuing notice on 12.09.2025, we had made the following observations:- “Inter alia submits that in similar circumstances, an award was passed on 11.08.2019, which was subject matter of appeal which was dismissed on the ground of limitation and apparently, CWP No.7986 of 2024 had been filed. It is submitted that in the present case, the appellant was the alleged guarantor, who was aggrieved against the award dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-4). The appeal against the said award was dismissed on 29.10.2019. However, it was only upon the issuance of a notice dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) for a huge recovery of Rs.44,68,450/- that the deceased appellant came to know about the proceedings, who at that time was suffering from throat cancer, which unfortunately led to his demise. 2. It is thus submitted that the writ petition was filed by the guarantor-Kundan Lal, and the same was dismissed on account of the delay of three and a half years. 3. It is contended that there is sufficient material on record as such to demonstrate the reasons why Kundal Lal could not approach the Court within time, and the reply was never called for while dismissing the writ petition in limine. 4. Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2-State. 5. Notice be issued to respondents No.3 and 4 returnable within a period of three weeks on taking steps within a week. 3 6. To come up on 16.10.2025. 7. In the meantime, translated copies of Annexure P-4 be filed. CMP No.13866 of 2025 8. Notice. Re:stay. CMP 1618 of 2025 9. Application for impleading legal representatives of the deceased/appellant-Kundal Lal, is ordered to be allowed subject to just exceptions for the purpose of the present litigation. 10. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. 11. Registry is directed to make appropriate changes accordingly. 12. Application stands disposed of.” 3. A perusal of the Award dated 22.04.2019 would go on to show that while passing the Award, the present appellants were the LRs of Kundan Lal, who was the gaurantor, the liability as such had been fixed upon him as he had given his gurantee on the pronote in favour of Ranjana Devi who was the wife of Rajesh Kumar, Secretary of the Society. 4. It is the specific case as such of the counsel for the appellants that in another writ petition bearing CWP No.7986 of 2024 titled Kundan Lal Vs. State of HP &. Others, which is still pending before this Court, has been preferred against an Award dated 10.08.2019 and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same which was in sum and substance against Rajesh Kumar, Inspector and through his nominee namely Ranjana Devi and Kundan Lal was also the surety. 4 5. Counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the delay was on account of the fact that when the appeal had been dismissed on 29.10.2019, the counsel had not informed Kundan Lal regarding the said aspect and he could not contact his counsel, as he had been suffering from cancer and eventually he expired during the pendency of the proceedings and now is represented by the LRs. 6. It is, in such circumstances, argued that had the reply been called for, the issue of delay could have been adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge. It is also the case of the counsel for the appellants that the findings of allegations shows that Rajesh Kumar, Secretary of the Society had misused his powers by misappropriating the Rules and cash of the Society, while referring to Annexure P-I of the Surcharge proceedings. 7. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the fixing of the liability upon the gaurantor as such also have to be considered on merits as a huge amount of Rs.44,68,450/- was sought to be recovered. It is, thus, submitted that the shifting as such of the liability by the Arbitrator vide Award dated 22.04.2019 would require consideration on merits also, keeping in view the overall background as such of the case and the manner in which the LRs as such of Kundan Lal would be prejudiced. 5 8. We are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to hear the present case along with Civil Writ Petition CWP No.7986 of 2024 titled Kundan Lal Vs. State of HP &. Others after completion of the pleadings and in the absence of the reply as such, the appellants have been seriously prejudiced. The background of the case as such was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge who only dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches without adverting to the said background which could have comeforth on the completion of the pleadings. 9. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge and remand the matter to be heard afresh on merits. 10. Office shall tag the same with the CWP No.7986 of 2023 and list alongwith the said CWP. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed off accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 24th February, 2026 (Tarun/Munish Thakur)