The appeal was dismissed for failure to condone a substantial delay of over one year and three months. The court held that the appellant's status as a senior citizen or lack of education did not provide a justifiable reason for the delay.
Application for condonation of delay and the main appeal were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:39119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.1134 of 2026 in FAO(FC)ST No.28563 of 2026 Decided on: 14.09.2026
Prem Chand … applicant/ appellant. Versus Sunita Devi and others … Non-applicants/Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _ For the applicant/ appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the non-applicants/ respondents : None. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Non-applicants/respondents stand served. None has put in appearance on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents.
“ As an ups upshot of the findings reached at above, the
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2026:HHC:39119
suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with costs and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are held entitled to maintenance at the rate of 1200/- each per month from the defendant,₹ payable with effect from the date of filing of the instant suit till attaining the age of majority. The decree shall be a charge upon the share of the defendant in the landed property entered in Khata No. 368, Khatauni No. 415, Khasra Nos. 1429, 1430, 1433, 3442/1450, 1456, 1462, 1530, 1601, 1643, 1695, 2016, 2863/1442, 2877/1679 Kita 13 measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas to the extent of 1/3 share measuring 8 Kanal 4 Marlas; Khata No. 371, Khatoni No. 418, Khasra Nos. 1426, 3280/1441, 3282/1509, Kita 3 measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas to the extent of 1/3 share measuring 0-09 Marlas; Khata No.430, Khatoni No.491, Khasra No. 1427 to the extent of 1421/6048 share measuring 0-10 Marlas as jamai 3.18 mal as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 of Tika Bhalwani, Mouza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP; and Khata No.1. Khatoni No.1, Khasra No. 1034, 1471, 1525, 1533, Kita 4, area measuring 7K-05 Marlas to the extent of share Prem Chand 1K-18 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 of Tika Manwin, Mouza Mewa. Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP. Rest of the prayer of the plaintiffs is declined.
43. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
44. Decree sheet be prepared as per this judgment.
45. The file after due completion, be consigned to the record room .”
3
2026:HHC:39119
4
2026:HHC:39119
hereinabove also, the reasons given in the application do not satisfy the test of justifiable reason so as to condone such a huge delay. The contention of the applicant that he came to know of the judgment only after he had received a notice in the execution petition cannot be believed. It was the duty of the applicant to have had followed the proceedings with his Counsel and because of the act of omission of the applicant, now the non-applicant cannot be taken by surprise by condoning such a huge delay.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal) Judge
September 14, 2026 (Rishi)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay can be granted for filing an appeal barred by over 1 year and 3 months.
Whether senior citizen status and lack of education constitute justifiable cause for condoning delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Chand
Sunita Devi
Ajay Mohan Goel
Yogesh Jaswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
