( 2026:HHC:4278 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.303 of 2025 Decided on: 24.02.2026 Kundan Lal (deceased) through his ....Appellants LRs Salochana Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate.

: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State.

: Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) .

The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure A-I), passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5773 of 2023, titled Kundan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was delayed by three and a half

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

years against the order passed in appeal on 29.10.2019 (Annexure P-9) under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, which was. further directed against an earlier order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Award as such had been passed by the Arbitrator.

2. While issuing notice on 12.09.2025, we had made the following observations:-

“Inrter alia submits that in similar circumstances, an award was passed on 11.08.2019, which was subject matter of appeal which was dismissed on the ground of limitation and apparently, CWP No.7986 of 2024 had been filed. It is submitted that in the present case, the appellant was the Calleged guarantor, who was aggrieved against the award dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-4). The appeal against the said award was dismissed on 29.10.2019. However, it was only upon the h issuance of a notice dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) for a huge recovery of Rs.44,68,450/- that the deceased appellant came to know about the proceedings, who at that time was suffering from throat cancer, which unfortunately led to his demise.

2. It is thus submitted that the writ petition was filed by the guarantor-Kundan Lal, and the same was dismissed on account of the delay of three and a half years.

3. It is contended that there is sufficient material on record as such to demonstrate the reasons why Kundal Lal could not approach the Court within time, and the reply was never called for while dismissing the writ petition in limine.

4. Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2-State.

5. Notice be issued to respondents No.3 and 4 returnable within a period of three weeks on taking steps within a week.

6. To come up on 16.10.2025.

7. In the meantime, translated copies of Annexure P-4 be filed.

CMP No.13866 of 2025

8. Notice. Re:stay. .

CMP 1618 of 2025

9. Application for impleading legal representatives of the deceased/appellant-Kundal Lal, is ordered to be allowed subjec t to just exceptions for the purpose of the prefsent litigation.

10. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

11. Registry is directed to make appropriate changes accordingly.

12. Application stands disposed of.”

3. A perusal of the Award dated 22.04.2019 would go on to show that while passing the Award, the present appellants were the LRs of Kundan Lal, who was the gaurantor, the liability as such had been fixed upon him as he had given his gurantee on the pronote in favour of Ranjana Devi who was the wife of Rajesh Kumar, Secretary of the Society.

4. It is the specific case as such of the counsel for the appellants that in another writ petition bearing CWP No.7986 of 2024 titled Kundan Lal Vs. State of HP &. Others, which is still pending before this Court, has been preferred against an Award dated 10.08.2019 and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same which was in sum and substance against Rajesh Kumar, Inspector and through his nominee namel