As per case facts, a Civil Suit for Specific Performance was dismissed in default due to the plaintiffs' non-compliance with a court order and their absence. The applicant, Prem Singh, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2026:HHC:9413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
OMP No. 204 of 2018 and OMP(M) No.
17 of 2018 in C.S. No. 104 of 2012
Reserved on : 02.03.2026
Decided on : 31.03.2026
Prem Singh & Others …Applicants
Versus
Indira Sharma and Others
…Respondents
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
1
Yes.
For the applicants : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karan
Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents :Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rakesh
Thakur, Advocate, for respondents
No. 1 to 5.
Name of respondent No. 6, vide
order dated 16.10.2025 stands
deleted.
Respondent No. 7 already exparte.
Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 8.
Virender Singh, Judge
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:9413
OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018
ApplicantPrem Singh has filed these
applications for restoration of his Civil Suit No. 104 of
2012, after condoning the delay in moving the application.
2. OMP No. 204 of 2018 has been filed for
restoration of the Civil Suit, under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4,
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
whereas OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 has been filed under the
provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of
delay in moving the application for restoration.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above two
applications, as borne out from the record, may be
summed up, as under:
3.1 ApplicantPrem Singh and two others have filed
the Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 for Specific Performance,
against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in
default on 24.08.2017. On that day, this Court had passed
the following order:
“Court notices issued to the plaintiffs are reported to
be served upon them, however, they neither put in
appearance in person nor the counsel appearing for
them under a Vakalatnama holds any instructions
from them in respect of their meting compliance with
the orders recorded by this Court on 16.11.2016,
thereupon the learned counsel for the plaintiff is
constrained to seek permission of this Court to
3 2026:HHC:9413
withdraw his power of attorney for the plaintiffs. He
is permitted to do so.
Consequently, the plaintiffs’ suit is dismissed in
default. Court fee(s) in accordance with law be
refunded to the plaintiffs. The pending
application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No
costs.”
3.2 ApplicantPrem Singh has now filed OMP No.
204 of 2018, for restoration of his suit, which was
dismissed in default.
3.3 Since, the said application has been filed after
the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
moved.
3.4 The restoration of the suit, after condoning the
delay, has been sought, mainly, on the ground, that after
passing the order dated 24.08.2017, the counsel for the
plaintiffs has sent the information with regard to the
dismissal of the suit, but, no response has been received
from plaintiff No. 1.
3.5 On 22.04.2018, one client, of the counsel
representing applicantPrem Singh, who, as per the
application, was also witness to the agreement to sell,
contacted the counsel in connection with some other case,
then, the said client was requested by the counsel to
4 2026:HHC:9413
inform the plaintiffs about the fate of the present Civil Suit,
who, accordingly informed applicant Prem Singh. The said
person had also found that Prem Singh is suffering from
number of ailments and remained confine to bed.
Applicant was also found to be suffering from Ulcer and
Spinal problem. However, after the receipt of information,
he immediately requested the Doctor to provide the medical
certificate with regard to his ailment. Applicant Prem
Singh remained under treatment with Paras Ayurvedic
Centre, from where the certificate was issued. The Doctor
of the said hospital has also advised him to have complete
bed rest.
3.6 It is further case of the applicant that he could
not comply with the order dated 16.11.2016, due to his
ailment and he was also having no knowledge of the same.
He could not also contact his Advocate on account of his ill
health.
3.7 Another ground, upon which, restoration of the
suit has also been sought is that the applicant had not
received the Court notices, when his counsel had sought
the withdrawal of his Vakalatnama. Reasserting the fact
that the applicant was not aware about the proceedings,
5 2026:HHC:9413
nor, received any summons from the Court, a prayer has
been made to restore the suit to its original number after
condoning the delay.
3.8 The delay in moving the application has been
sought to be condoned mainly on the ground, upon which,
the restoration of the suit has been sought. In the
application, it has been pleaded that one of the clients of
his counsel, on 22.04.2018, visited the counsel, who had
represented the applicant and it has been conveyed to the
said client to inform about the dismissal of the suit in
default to the applicant, upon which, said Shyam Sunder
contacted the applicant and conveyed him about the orders
passed by this Court on 16.11.2016.
3.9 It has also been pleaded in the application that
on 26.04.2018, the counsel of the plaintiffs came to know
from Sh. Shyam Sunder, resident of Kasauli, who was
witness to the agreement to sell, about the ailment of the
applicant. It has also been apprised to the counsel of the
plaintiffs that the applicant is under treatment w.e.f. June,
2016. Thereafter, on telephonic conversation, it was also
found that the applicant was unable to come to Shimla.
Thereafter, applicant had produced the certificates issued
6 2026:HHC:9413
by the Doctor dated 24.04.2018, 06.11.2017, 16.06.2017
and 31.10.2016, through Sh. Shyam Sunder.
3.10 Thereafter, the applications have been
prepared, which were forwarded to the applicant for
signatures and attestation on 28.04.2018 and same were
received back on 05.05.2018, but application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act, was not received, as the same
was lost during transit. Thereafter, application was again
redrafted and sent for signatures and attestation on
06.05.2018, which was received back on 09.05.2018.
3.11 On the basis of above facts, delay in moving the
application has been sought to be condoned.
4. When put to notice, OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018,
has been contested, on the ground, that the applicant/
plaintiffs had not complied with the order dated
16.11.2016. Not only this, the applicant deliberately failed
to put appearance before this Court on 24.08.2017, despite
service of the Court notices. According to the respondents,
the notices were served upon the plaintiffs in person on
28.07.2017. In this regard, respondents relied upon the
report of Registry dated 21.08.2017.
7 2026:HHC:9413
4.1 It is their further case that applicant Prem
Singh had received the summons on behalf of his wife Smt.
Kaushalya. Plaintiff No. 3 Gopal Singh was also served in
person and they had failed to put appearance before the
Court, despite service of summons of this Court. As such,
this Court has rightly dismissed the suit in default.
4.2 It is also their case that on that day i.e.
24.08.2017, counsel representing the plaintiffs was also
present and his presence was duly marked. The
allegations, as contained in the application, under Section
5 of Limitation Act, are also stated to be concocted facts.
According to the respondents, the applicant is unable to
explain the delay, in the present case. The order dated
24.08.2017, is also stated to be well within the knowledge
of the counsel representing them, as well as, other two
applicants i.e. Smt. Kaushalaya and Gopal Singh.
4.3 All these facts have been pleaded to
demonstrate that if it is assumed that if applicant was not
feeling well, then, other two plaintiffs had ample
opportunity to contact their counsel or to appear before
this Court after receiving the summons for 24.08.2017.
8 2026:HHC:9413
4.4 Other allegations, as levelled in the application,
have also been controverted/disputed.
5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the application.
6. Nonapplicant/defendant No. 8 filed the
separate reply and the application has also been contested
on the similar grounds.
7. Following issues were framed by this Court in
OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 and OMP No. 204 of 2018, on
19.09.2018:
1.Whether the delay in filing the application
under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been sufficiently
explained? OPP
2.Relief.
8. After framing of the issues, the applicant has
examined AW1, Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has deposed that
after superannuating from the services, he had started his
private practice. Applicant Prem Singh visited him in the
year 2016, with the pain in lower back and Ulcerative
colitis. Due to the ailment, the patient was unable to make
easy movement and also, it was difficult for him to travel.
Applicant remained under his treatment, since June, 2016,
9 2026:HHC:9413
till the date he appeared in the witness box i.e. 18.03.2019.
He issued the certificate Ext. AW1/A.
8.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2016,
applicant Prem Singh was in critical condition and for
panchkarma treatment, he visited his clinic for about 8 to
10 times, and sometimes, AW1 used to visit his home.
8.2 Lastly, he has deposed that without the help of
attendant, it was not possible for the applicant to visit his
clinic.
8.3 In the crossexamination by learned counsel for
defendantsnonapplicants No. 1 to 6, this witness has
admitted that in the certificate Ext. AW1/A, he has not
mentioned the period of bed rest. This witness does not
maintain the record with regard to OPDs. However,
according to him, he maintained the entries of the
applicant, however, said register has not been brought, as
the same was not summoned. He further admitted that
registration number of the patient has not been entered in
Ext. AW1/A. However, he voluntarily stated that
inadvertently, he failed to mention the same in the
prescription slip.
10 2026:HHC:9413
8.4 In the crossexamination by learned counsel for
nonapplicant No. 8, this witness has admitted that he has
not obtained patient signatures on the OPD slips.
9. AW2, Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, deposed that
he had engaged Mr. Anand Sharma, as his Advocate and
he met him in the month of April, 2018. Mr. Anand
Sharma was engaged as a counsel to seek advise with
respect to a tax matter. This witness had also come to him
to know about the fate of his Regular Second Appeal
pending before this Court.
9.1 In addition to this, he is witness to the
agreement to sell, whereof, decree for Specific Performance
was claimed on 26.04.2018 by the applicant. This witness
has informed the applicant that he is negligent in attending
his case. However, when he visited the applicant, he
noticed that he was in critical condition. It is his further
case that applicant is critically ill and when he had to
travel, the vehicle had to be stopped after every 1015
minutes.
9.2 According to this witness, he had brought the
applicant on 17.03.2019 and lodged him in a hotel in
11 2026:HHC:9413
Shimla. Lastly, he has deposed that he could not inform
him earlier, as he had visited his son at London (U.K.).
9.3 In the crossexamination, this witness has
admitted that he had appeared as PW, in the present case,
however, he has feigned his ignorance about other
plaintiffs, who had instituted the case. He has admitted
that brother of the applicant has been arrayed as co
plaintiff in the suit. His wife has also been arrayed as co
plaintiff, but voluntarily stated that she must have
executed the power of attorney, in favour of the applicant.
10. ApplicantPrem Singh appeared in the witness
box as AW3. According to this witness, he had filed the
suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell, in the
year 2012. In the said suit, evidence of the plaintiff was
completed and thereafter, the case was listed for DWs.
However, prior to the date fixed i.e. 16.11.2016, this
witness had fallen ill and ailment was Ulcer colitis and
damage of spinal cord. He remained under treatment with
Dr. M.S. Thakur, who has proved the medical summary as
Ext. AW1/A. He had taken the treatment from Paras
Ayurvedic Center, being run by Dr. M.S. Thakur.
12 2026:HHC:9413
10.1 He has further deposed that in the year 2018,
one Shyam Sunder, who made negotiations to sell the suit
property, told him that the suit filed by them has been
dismissed in default on 24.08.2017, for want of his
personal appearance. He has requested him to contact his
counsel and after receiving intimation from him, when this
witness, contacted his counsel, he has also been apprised
about the order, which was passed on 24.08.2017.
Thereafter, he was advised to file the restoration
application.
10.2 Lastly, he has deposed that his failure to impart
instructions to his counsel, as well as, appearance before
the Court was neither intentional nor willful. As such, he
prayed that order dated 24.08.2017, be recalled and suit
be restored to its original number.
10.3 In the crossexamination by learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 to 6, this witness has admitted that due
to the ailment, he was not in a position to travel. Shyam
Sunder had made negotiation with regard to the suit
property and he is witness in the main Civil Suit. He
admitted that apart from his wife Smt. Kaushalaya Devi,
his brother Gopal Singh were coplaintiffs. Both the co
13 2026:HHC:9413
plaintiffs are residing with him. He has admitted that
except taking treatment from Dr. M.S. Thakur, he has not
visited any government hospital. During the period of
treatment, he remained admit in his clinic. This witness,
feigned his ignorance about the period when he was
hospitalized in the clinic of Dr. M.S. Thakur. Mr. Anand
Sharma, was his counsel in the main suit. He deposed
that he continuously remained in contact with his counsel,
however, thereafter he remained uncommunicative. This
witness has denied his signatures upon court notices
MarkA and MarkB.
11. To rebut this evidence, the respondents
examined RW1 Sh. Mohinder Sharma, the then Bailiff in
the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Nalagarh. This witness
has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as
Process Server in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)
Kasauli. According to him, notices dated 29
th
July, 2017,
Ext. RA, Ext. RB and Ext. RC, were issued in Civil Suit
No. 104 of 2012, titled as ‘Prem Singh and others Versus
Indra Sharma and others’, These notices were served by
him upon the persons, to whom said notices were issued at
their village itself. He specifically deposed the name of
14 2026:HHC:9413
village Chhatiyan, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. He
identified his signatures on the report of service, which are
encircled in red circles A, B and C, upon notices Ext. RA,
Ext. RB and Ext. RC. The persons, upon whom, the
notices were served, had duly signed the said notices and
their signatures are encircled in circles D, E and F on Ext.
RA, Ext. RB and Ext. RC.
11.1 In the crossexamination, this witness has
admitted that he has not obtained the signature of any
witness as a proof of delivery of summons to the party
concerned. Plaintiff Prem Singh is not his relative, but
according to him, he is known to him. He has feigned
ignorance that plaintiff Prem Singh remained ill from June,
2016 up to the year 2018. He denied other suggestions
put to him, by suggesting that summons do not bear his
signatures. He has also denied the suggestion that Ext. R
A, Ext. RB and Ext. RC do not contain the signatures of
the plaintiffs.
12. This is the entire evidence.
13. Perusal of the record shows that the Civil Suit
was instituted on 09
th
October, 2012 and was registered as
Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012. After the completion of the
15 2026:HHC:9413
pleadings, the issues were framed way back on
18.07.2013. Thereafter, the case remained on board for
PWs. Subsequently, by moving OMP No. 397 of 2016,
certain documents were sought to be produced on the file
and on 16.11.2016, following order was passed by this
Court:
“The learned counsel for defendant No. 8 has filed
an application for placing on record certain
documents. However, the learned counsel for the
non applicants prays for some time to file a reply
thereto. Permission granted. Be filed within four
weeks.
It is open for the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to
institute an appropriate application for adding in the
array of the defendants alienees of defendants No. 1
to 6 of the property in lieu whereof an exchange
occurred with defendant No. 8. Also the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs is permitted to institute an
application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the CPC
against the defendants concerned who in the
aforesaid manner infracted the order of this Court
whereupon they stood mandated to maintain status
quo qua nature and possession of the suit property.
The aforesaid application(s) be filed within four
weeks and reply thereto be filed within four weeks
thereafter.”
14. Thereafter, six effective opportunities were given
to the plaintiffs to comply with the said order and
thereafter, the case remained on board for the said purpose
for about one and half years. Thereafter, on 18.07.2017,
the counsel representing the plaintiffs has submitted the
Court with regard to nonresponse of his communication
16 2026:HHC:9413
by the plaintiffs. Consequently, on 18.07.2017, this Court
has passed the following order while issuing Court notices
for the plaintiffs:
“The learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ submits that
the latters’ not responding to his repeated
communications, regarding instructions which were
to be remitted by them to him in respect of institution,
if deemed fit, of an application for amendment(s),
also, instructions for moving an appropriate
application for impleadment of certain alienees.
Consequently, the plaintiffs’ be served through Court
notice for 24.08.2017, for theirs imparting necessary
instructions to their counsel. List on 24.08.2017.”
15. As per order dated 24.08.2017, those Court
notices were duly served and then, this Court has
dismissed the suit in default, on 24.08.2017.
16. Thereafter, the OMP No. 204 of 2018, for
restoration of the Civil Suit along with OMP(M) No. 17 of
2018, for condonation of delay, was filed on 09.05.2018.
17. It is no longer resintegra that procedural laws
are meant for advancement of justice and not to hamper
the same. But, this does not mean that whatsoever has
been pleaded in the application would be taken as gospel
truth, nor, under the garb of liberal interpretation of
procedural law, each and every assertion made in the
application would be accepted as gospel truth to restore
the suit, as, after the long battle, which was instituted in
17 2026:HHC:9413
the year 2012, the lis was culminated by the dismissal of
the suit in default, on account of the noncompliance of
order dated 16.11.2016. After the dismissal of the suit, a
valuable right has been accrued in favour of defendants,
who were contesting the suit right from the inception of the
lis, till the date when the suit was dismissed in default.
The said right cannot be taken away so lightly.
18. Whenever a person is approaching the Court, it
is expected from him to bring the true facts for the judicial
scrutiny of this Court. The application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act i.e. OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018, was
instituted by applicant Prem Singh, and even the
application does not bears the signature of applicant, but
the same is supported by the affidavit of applicant Prem
Singh. Moreover, in the present lis, apart from applicant
Prem Singh, two other persons were impleaded as
plaintiffs; one is wife of applicant Prem Singh, who, no
doubt, has given her GPA to her husband Prem Singh, and
another Gopal Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, who is not a
stranger, but, real brother of applicant Prem Singh and
residing in same village i.e. village Chhatiyan. The Civil
Suit was signed by Prem Singh and Gopal Singh. Evidence
18 2026:HHC:9413
of the plaintiffs was closed in this case on 30.11.2015.
Thereafter, statements of two DWs were recorded and
thereafter on 16.11.2016, orders were passed by this Court
permitting the plaintiffs to move the application under
Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC.
19. Even, the application bearing OMP No. 204 of
2018, which has been filed under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4 read
with Section 151 of CPC, has been filed by only plaintiff No.
1 Prem Singh. The main thrust of the applicant in the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is
with regard to condoning the delay on the ground of his
ailment, not the ailment of his brother.
20. In para 2 of the application, filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, a plea has been taken that the
applicant Prem Singh is also power of attorney holder of
plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, however, no such document has
been placed on record, nor, such averments are there in
the plaint, as plaintiff No. 2 Kaushalya Devi has filed the
suit through her GPA i.e. applicant Prem Singh, who has
been arrayed in the suit as plaintiff No. 1. However, no
GPA/SPA of plaintiff No. 3, has been annexed with the
application.
19 2026:HHC:9413
21. ApplicantPrem Singh has taken a specific
stand in the application that on 22.04.2018, Shyam
Sunder (PW2) had met his counsel, in connection with
some other case, upon which, his counsel requested said
Shyam Sunder to convey the decision of the suit, to the
applicant. It would be apt to reproduce para 3 of the
application. Consequently, the same is reproduced as
under:
“That one fine morning that one of the client of the
counsel on 22.04.2018, came in some other case
from Kasauli, and he was requested to convey the
dismissal in default of the above said Civil Suit due
to the nonperusing and not replying the letters of the
counsel. On the requested of the Counsel Sh. Shyam
Sunder was requested to contact the plaintiff so that
the appropriate application in the present suit may
be filed in pursuance of the orders passed by the
Hon’ble Court on 16.11.2016.”
22. Apart from this, he has taken a stand that on
26.04.2018, his counsel came to know about the ailment of
applicant Prem Singh. When appeared in the witness box
as AW2, this witness has simply stated that he met Sh.
Anand Sharma, Advocate, in the month of April, 2018, in
connection with some tax matter and came to know about
the fate of his Regular Second Appeal, and, thereafter he
apprised the applicant about the fact that he is negligent in
his personally attending the case. His deposition is totally
20 2026:HHC:9413
silent about the fact that the counsel of the applicant
requested him to convey the order dated 24.08.2017, to
him, with a request to further convey the same to the
applicant.
23. AW2 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal, is the star
witness of the applicant, to bring his application for
restoration of suit within limitation by pleading that he was
the person, to whom, the counsel had requested to apprise
the applicant about the fate of his case, but this witness,
no where stated in his deposition on oath that on
26.08.2018, when he had met the counsel of the applicant,
with whom, he wants to discuss the tax matter, as well as,
to discuss the fate of his pending Regular Second Appeal.
He (AW2) was requested by the counsel for the applicant
to convey him the fate of their Civil Suit. In the absence of
any averment, according to which, AW2 has apprised the
applicant about the dismissal of his suit in default on
24.08.2017, then the stand of the applicant in the
application qua the fact that said Shyam Sunder contacted
him and conveyed him about the dismissal of the suit in
default, cannot be accepted as gospel truth, as, Shyam
Sunder has not deposed so, in his deposition.
21 2026:HHC:9413
24. The deposition i.e. “I informed the applicant
that he is negligent in his personally attending his case”,
does not substantiate the stand of the applicant qua
receiving the alleged information regarding dismissal of
suit through AW2 Shyam Sunder, to him.
25. ApplicantPrem Singh when appeared in the
witness box has miserably failed to point out as to when
Shyam Sunder (AW2) had apprised him about the
dismissal of the suit. He has simply stated that in the year
2018, one Shyam Sunder met him and told that suit has
been dismissed on 24.08.2017, for want of his personal
appearance, whereas AW2 has not uttered these words in
his examinationinchief. Rather, applicant has introduced
a new story that after allegedly receiving the information
from Shyam Sunder, when he had contacted his counsel,
then the fate of his case was apprised to him, and
thereafter, his counsel advised him to seek restoration of
the suit.
26. In view of the discussions made above, this
Court is of the view that in the absence of any cogent
reason for not moving the application within the prescribed
period of limitation, the contradictory stand, as taken by
22 2026:HHC:9413
the applicant, as well as, his witness, is too short to
condone the delay in moving the application. Although, it
is no longer resintegra that liberal approach should be
adopted by this Court while deciding the application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act, but, this does not mean that
whatsoever submissions, which even, do not appeal to the
judicial conscience of this Court, should be accepted.
27. Although the term sufficient cause has no
where been defined in the Limitation Act, but the same
could be said to be a situation which is beyond the
ordinary control of a prudent person.
28. As stated above, after the dismissal of the suit,
a valuable right has been accrued in favour of the
defendants.
29. Even otherwise, the conduct of the applicant, in
the present case, also disentitles him from seeking the
condonation of delay as Court notices, as per the orders
passed by this Court, have duly been served upon the
applicant, as well as, his coplaintiffs. It is not the case of
the applicant that Court notices were not served upon
other two plaintiffs, nor plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have
bothered to appear in the witness box, to depose that
23 2026:HHC:9413
Court notices were not served upon them. His vague
averments qua non service of the notice, in the absence of
the evidence of two other plaintiffs cannot be accepted as
gospel truth. Nonappearance of other two plaintiffs in the
witness box, gives this Court an occasion to say that the
case set up by the applicant is not true.
30. Although, a futile exercise has been made to
put question upon Sh. Mohinder Sharma, Bailiff (RW1)
that he did not obtain the signatures of any witness, as a
proof of delivery of summons to the party concerned, but,
said suggestion is too short to be accepted, as plaintiff No.
3, would be the better person to appear and to depose that
notices were not served upon him. His nonappearance
would give an occasion for this Court to draw adverse
inference against him.
31. Even applicant Prem Singh, in his examination
inchief, has not deposed anything about the non service
of the Court notices upon him.
32. Moreover, the proceedings, in the present case,
were initiated by the plaintiffs by filing a Civil Suit on the
original side jurisdiction of this Court. After passing the
order dated 16.11.2016, as many as, six effective
24 2026:HHC:9413
opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to move the
application and when learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs submitted to the Court that despite repeated
communications, instructions were not imparted to him,
then this Court had ordered to serve Court notices upon
them, subsequently, the counsel for the plaintiffs was
permitted to withdraw the Power of Attorney and suit of the
plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed in default. The
counsel for the applicant has stated at bar before this
Court on 18.07.2017, that despite various
communications, instructions were not imparted to him.
33. In such situation, this Court is of the view that
no plausible explanation, which would fall within the
definition of “sufficient cause”, has been put forward by the
applicant for condonation of delay.
34. Consequently, application under consideration
is dismissed.
OMP No. 204 of 2018
35. Vide order of the even date, passed in OMP(M)
No. 17 of 2018, delay in filing the application has not been
condoned, as such, the present application is dismissed
being time barred.
25 2026:HHC:9413
36. Pending application(s), if any, are also ordered
to be disposed of, accordingly.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
31
st
March, 2026
(Pramod Kumar)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....