IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.259 of 2024

Date of Decision : 28.11.2025

Kamlesh Kalia …… Appellant

Versus

Babu Ram (since deceased) through Legal Heirs

……Respondents

Coram: t

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting u ?1

For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Shagun Sharma,

Advocates, vice Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

gThe present Regular Second Appeal is filed, inter alia,

challenging the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the Learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Misc. Application No. 378 of 2019. By the impugned order, the said application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2012, was dismissed. The said judgment dated 30.01.2012 was passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Counter-Claim No. 37/2005,

titled Babu Ram vs. Sonfi Devi.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant (since deceased, and now represented bPy her Legal representative), being the original Plaintiff, had instituted a suit in the year 2004 under Sections 9 & 26 of the Civil Procedure Code and Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Sections 34, 36 & 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit sought a declaration of ownership and permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of land comprised in Khata No. 188 Min, Khatauni No. 194 Min, Khasra Nto. 23 (77 min old), measuring 0-01-56 Hectares, situated at Tika Bhawrian, Tehsil Nadaun, District Mauza Khola, Hamirpur, H.P.

3. The said suit of the appellant was dismissed in default on 28.10.2009. In the said suit, the respondent (original Defendant) had filed a Counter-Claim seeking possession of the suit property. The said Counter- Claim of the respondent was allowed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), iNadaun.

4. According to the appellant, she remained unaware of the ex- parte decree passed in the Counter-Claim in the year 2012. The respondent/Decree Holder thereafter initiated execution proceedings. It was only during the pendency of these execution proceedings, after the death of the original appellant Smt. Sonfi Devi in the year 2018, that her Legal Representative (the present appellant) came to know about the entire litigation and the ex-parte decree passed against her.

5. The appellant, upon gaining knowledge, filed Civil Misc. Application No. 378 of 2019 (arising from Registration No. 613 of 2019)

before the Learned District Judge (Appellate Court) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the First APppeal. In the said application, it was asserted that the counsel originally engaged for the civil suit had withdrawn the same without prior intimation to the appellant (mother of the present LRs)

6. There was a total delay of approximately 491 days in filing the appeal. According to the appellant the delay occurred, inter alia, because the appellant was ill and was not residting in Village Bhavran. Knowledge of the ex-parte proceedings was acquired only when the appellant was served in the execution proceedings as the legal representative of the original counter- defendant. It was thus prayed that sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out and the application was allowed.

7. The respondent opposed the condonation application by filing a reply, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it was asserted that the appellant was aware of the ex-parte decree dated i30.01.2012 as she had received summons and had appeared before the Executing Court. The execution matter was listed for filing objections