Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9807 (HP)

ADARSH MOHAN v. MC SHIMLA AND OTHERS

CMPMO/206/2026 · 2026-05-11

Romesh Verma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.206/2026 Date of Decision: 11th May, 2026. Adarsh Mohan .....Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla and Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P8), passed by the learned Additional District Judge (CBI) Court, Shimla, HP in CMP No.540 of 2025, whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the present petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 defendants from illegally and unlawfully disconnecting and withholding the essential and necessary amenities of electricity and water in Set No.6 situated in First Floor of Building identified as Elgin Villa Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, comprising of 2 rooms, 1 kitchen, one bathroom-cum-toilet, measuring approximately 500 sq. ft.. As per the averments as made in the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff is a tenant with respect to set No.6, the first floor of the building identified as Elgin Villa Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. The rented premises in question comprises of 2 rooms, 1 kitchen, one bathroom -cum-toilet measuring approximately 500 sq. ft. The plaintiff is occupying the said premises for the last more than 30 years and regularly paying rent to defendant No.4. 3. The defendant No.4 illegally, unlawfully and in unauthorized manner is trying to dispossess the plaintiff along with other tenants from the rented premises situated in the aforesaid building. Defendant No.4 without taking due course and in a brazenly unlawful and illegal manner, is trying to dispossess the plaintiff on the pretext that the building has become unfit and unsafe. The defendant No.4 had issued a notice on 17.02.2022 to the plaintiff alongwith other tenants of the building to vacate the premises on the false and invented ground of building being unfit and unsafe. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, whereby restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from illegally and unlawfully disconnecting and withholding the 3 essential and necessary amenities of electricity and water in set No.6 over the suit property. 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC with the prayer that till the disposal of the Suit the defendants be restrained from illegally and unlawfully disconnecting and withholding the essential and necessary amenities of electricity and water of Set No.6 over the suit property. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. The suit as filed by the plaintiff has been resisted on various grounds such as locus standi, maintainability, estoppel etc. All the averments, as made in the plaint, has been refuted and all the allegations has been denied. 6. The defendants filed the reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 7. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 18.01.2025, dismissed the application, which was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. Since the appeal was time barred, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sections 94 and 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner. 4 9. The learned District Judge vide its impugned order dated 07.03.2026, dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.03.2026, the plaintiff is before this Court. It is contended by the Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that sufficient grounds were made out by the petitioner for the condonation of delay and ignoring the well settled principle of the Limitation Act, the application has been wrongly dismissed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1, Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 and Sh. R.K.Bawa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4, have defended the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 12. In the application which has been filed for condonation of delay, it is averred that application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. vide order dated 18.01.2025. The intimation of the said order was given to the present petitioner vide notice dated 08.04.2025, by the officials of the respondent No.1/Corporation. 5 The order was passed by the learned Trial Court on 18.01.2025,thereafter, there were vacations in the trial Courts. The Courts reopened in the 3rd Week of February, 2025. On account of oversight and inadvertence, it was not within the knowledge of the counsel for the petitioner and it came only to the knowledge of the petitioner in the 3rd week of April, 2025, when the notice dated 08.04.2025 was issued to the present petitioner alongwith other occupants of the building. The applicant immediately brought the said fact to the notice of the counsel in the 3rd Week of April 2025. Upon bearing the knowledge, by virtue of the notice, immediately counsel for the applicant/petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order dated 18.01.2025 on 23.04.2025 and the same was collected on 26.04.2025. The applicant is an aged person and he is more than 71 years old and he is resident of Chandigarh. The petitioner contacted the counsel in the last week of May, 2025 and instructed his counsel to file the appeal, assailing the order as passed by the learned trial Court on 18.01.2025. The petitioner was preoccupied with his family affairs and functions in the month of May, 2025 as his younger son got recently married in the month of October, 2024. Thereafter the appeal was drafted along with the application on the instruction of the applicant/petitioner and immediately on his arrival at Shimla from Chandigarh, the necessary steps were taken for the filing of the appeal. 13. It was averred that the the delay in filing the application is neither intentional nor willful, as the same has occurred under the 6 aforesaid circumstances. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of the present petitioner. 14. The said application was duly resisted by the defendants/respondents by taking various objections. The fact remains that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he is residing at Chandigarh along with his son. Though there is delay in filing the appeal, however, the petitioner has been able to furnish sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The reasons as assigned in the application, especially in paras 2, 3 and 4, are thereof plausible and reasonable. The petitioner has been able to make out a case for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 15. Consequently, after setting aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2026, the present petition is allowed and the appeal as preferred before the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, is restored to its original number with direction to take the appeal to its logical end within a period of one month from the date of presence of the respective parties. 16. It is made clear that no fresh notices shall be issued by the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla as the learned counsel for the parties undertake to remain present on the next date of hearing before the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla on 22.06.2026. The 7 present order is subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/-in the Chief Justice Disaster Management Fund by the petitioner, failing which, the benefit of present order shall not be available to the petitioner 18. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 11th May, 2026 (Nisha)