2026:HHC:2040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.3 of 2026 Decided on: 07.01.2026 Santosh Goyal … Petitioner Versus Sohan Lal & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: No notice issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, which is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay, a prayer has been made for review of the order passed by the Court on 10.03.2025, in terms whereof, the order passed by the learned Court below, rejecting the application of the non-applicants/respondents filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was set aside. 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the error apparent on the face of the record is that the question of title was involved in the case which has not been correctly appreciated by the Court and further, the reason as to why the petitioner could not put in appearance through Counsel before the Court was that the lawyer who was engaged by the petitioner, did not appear in the Court. 3. The order, review of this is being sought, is dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:2040 10.03.2025. The Review Petition has been filed on 24.12.2025. A perusal of the application filed, praying for condonation of delay contains the following reasons for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition:- “3. That the petitioner engaged the counsel for appearing on his behalf in the CMPMO No 748/2025 Titled as Sohan Lal and Ors Versus Santosh Goel before this Hon'ble Court but due to non appearance on the part of the counsel in the matter, this Hon'ble Court decided the CMPMO and the petitioner could not put his view and the relevant documents before this Hon'ble Court. As and when the petitioner asked his counsel the reply was that the petition is pending and as and when the decision came the petitioner will be informed. The petitioner received the summons for eviction in the name of his father on 2nd of December 2025. Then the applicant came to the know the decision in the CMPMO in December and approached the Counsel at Shimla for filing the review petition. Then the copies of the petition as well as the documents filed in the petition were applied and the same has been received on 22-12-2025. Thereafter present review petition has been drafted without further delay in the matter and filed before this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice. 4. That the petitioner is not having the sufficient funds for filing the review petition and after arrangement of the funds the applicant approached the counsel for filing the review petition on 2-12-2024 and then the petitioner was advised to file the review petition against the judgment /order dated 10-03-2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Then the review petition has been prepared and filed 3 2026:HHC:2040 without any further delay.” 4. This Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition, because obviously, after the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendants was allowed by this Court, this fact would have come to the notice of the plaintiff on the very next date when the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court and thus, it is evident that the story that has been mentioned in the application, is a concocted one. Besides this, when the petitioner was duly served in the petition filed by the respondents herein, i.e. CMPMO No.748 of 2024, it was for him to safeguard his interest and it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served in the course of proceedings before this Court. Otherwise also, the ground taken by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court did not appreciate that the question of title was involved in the case, is a ground of merit and the same cannot be construed as a ground, on which it can be stated that there is an error apparent on the face of it. 5. Therefore, in light of the above observations, this review petition alongwith application filed for condonation of delay are dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 07, 2026 (Rishi)