2026:HHC:18420 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.116 of 2026 Date of Decision: 13th May, 2026. Mahesh Baliyan .....Petitioner Versus Sunil Sharda ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Jayotirmay Bhatt, Advocates. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.02.2026, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in CMA No. 785 of 2025, titled Sunil Sharda vs. Mahesh Baliyan, whereby an application filed by the present respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay stands allowed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,66,473/- in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. 3. The defendant/respondent was proceeded ex parte in the said suit and ultimately the learned Trial Court, vide its judgment 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:18420 and decree dated 17.12.2022, partly decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by passing a decree for Rs. 30,00,000/-. 4. Thereafter, the DH/petitioner filed an execution petition before the learned Trial Court for execution of the judgment passed in his favour and against the respondent/JD. The Executing Court passed an order of attachment against the present respondent/JD. 5. In the meantime, the respondent/JD filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him by the learned trial Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the respondent/JD preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 7. The appeal preferred before the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. was time-barred. Consequently, separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was appended with the said appeal. 8. The said application was contested by the present petitioner/DH vehemently before the learned First Appellate Court. After hearing the respective parties, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the application and condoned the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. 3 2026:HHC:18420 9. Feeling dissatisfied on account of allowing of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, DH/petitioner is before this Court. 10. It is contended by Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, that the impugned order, as passed by the learned First Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that no plausible reasons have been assigned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Jayotirmay Bhatt, Advocates, for the respondent, submit that the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., has rightly exercised the jurisdiction by allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that there is no jurisdictional error in the same. They submit that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court was neither intentional nor willful, but the same occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. They have drawn the attention of this Court to the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein reasons for non-filing of the appeal have been assigned. 12. As per the averments made in the application, it has been stated that the limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days. The certified copy of the impugned order, whereby their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed, was applied on 05.09.2025 and was prepared on 08.09.2025. After excluding the days spent in preparation of the certified copy, the appeal is time-barred by 21 4 2026:HHC:18420 days. The reasons assigned in the application are that the present respondent is a resident of Ludhiana and has to take care of his 76- year-old widowed mother, Ms. Suman Sharda. His mother is suffering from pseudophakia, which is a medical condition referring to the presence of an artificial intraocular lens in the eye after the natural lens have been removed. His mother is under treatment, therefore, the present respondent was compelled to attend to her, and the delay of 21 days occurred in filing the appeal. 13. This Court has perused the case file and is of the considered opinion that the learned First Appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction in a legal manner and that there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. The respondent has assigned plausible and reasonable reasons in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that a justice-oriented approach should be adopted while considering application for condonation of delay. 15. It has come on record that the mother of the respondent is ailing from pseudophakia and she is under the constant medical attention of the present respondent. It has also come on record that the present respondent is a permanent resident of Ludhiana, which is at a considerable distance from Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and there is no infirmity in the same. 5 2026:HHC:18420 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 13th May, 2026 (Nisha)