2026:HHC:5088 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 2528 of 2026 in CWP No. 5825 of 2011 Decided on: 02.03.2026 State of H.P. and another …….non-applicant/petitioners Versus Rajesh Kumar … applicant/ Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the non-applicant/ : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate Petitioner General. For the applicant/ : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. respondent Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) This application has been filed under along with a petition filed Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 thereof for recalling of order dated 12.04.2017, in terms whereof, the applicant was proceeded ex parte and also judgment dated 24.05.2017, in terms whereof the ex parte judgment was pronounced. This petition, an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 8 years three months and five days delay in filing the petition. 2. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that when the process was issued in the writ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5088 petition and dasti summons were issued on 13.10.2011, for appearance of the applicant on 19.02.2011, though the petitioner is stated to have been served dasti but there was no such service because there is mismatch of signatures. He further submitted that thereafter again when notices were issued to the applicant, the same were served upon Mr. P.C. Bhadwal, maternal uncle of the petitioner for appearance of the petitioner before the Court on 27.08.2012, but Mr. P.C. Bhadwal never informed the petitioner of the receipt of said summons, who as per the petitioner was also his representative in the reference petition before the Labour Court. It is further his contention that the petitioner remained unaware of the writ proceedings and it is later on, as has been averred in the application that he became aware of the same and it is on the basis of this factual background that the prayer is being made for condonation of more than eight years delay in filing the petition. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant and having perused the averments made in the application, this Court is not convinced with the reasons given therein for condonation of delay. In fact, the averments made in the application spell out that initially the petitioner was served dasti but the petitioner is denying his signatures on the dasti summons. However, if as per record, the 3 2026:HHC:5088 petitioner was served dasti, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the Court record. Thereafter, again as per the own version of the petitioner, summons were issued to him which were duly received by one Shri P.C. Bhadwal, who besides being his maternal uncle, was the person who was representing him before the Labour Court. Thus it is evident from these facts that it is not as if receipt of summons on behalf of the petitioner by his maternal uncle is to be construed that the summons were received by someone who was not even remotely connected with the litigation being pursued by the petitioner against the employer. The gentleman who received the summons, besides being his maternal uncle, was his representative in the reference proceedings also, after the receipt of summons whether or not he intimated the receipt thereof to the petitioner again is question of fact, which on the face of it cannot be believed as is being submitted by learned Counsel because this Court has no reason to believe as to why Mr. Bhadwal could not have had informed the petitioner of the receipt of the summons. There is no affidavit of Mr. Bhadwal appended. His present status is also not mentioned in the application. Therefore, in light of the fact the petitioner was 4 2026:HHC:5088 proceeded ex parte on 12.04.2017 and the ex parte judgment was pronounced on 24.05.2017 and the petition has approached this Court belatedly and that too on the grounds which do not satisfy the Court, the petition as well as the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 02, 2026 (narender)