Allowed¶18

Jagjit Singh v. Mohan Singh and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026CMP.M/1342/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; regular second appeal (RSA); appeal barred by limitation; single/composite appeal against decree of declaration suit and dismissed counter claim; counter claim; Senior Civil Judge Court No.1 Una District Una; Additional District Judge(I) Una; dismissal of appeal 01.11.2022; RSA No.44 of 2023; Charan Singh vs. Ram Saroop SLP(C) D.No.59467 of 2024; Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; separate memorandum of appeal; appeal registered; notice waived; CMP(M) No.1342 of 2025; Romesh Verma.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 2 years, 8 months and 3 days in filing the regular second appeal; application disposed of and the appeal ordered to be registered. ¶18

Jagjit Singh Vs Mohan Singh and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Jagjit Singh vs. Mohan Singh & others

¶2

CMP(M) No.1342 of 2025

¶3

02.03.2026 Present: Mr. Y.P. Sood and Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶4

Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶5

Respondents No.3 to 5 proceeded against ex-parte.

¶6

CMP(M) No.1342 of 2025

¶7

The present application has been filed by the appellant/counter claimant for condonation of delay in filing regular second appeal.

¶8

In the application, though, various grounds have been submitted for condoning the delay, however, keeping in view the fact that the respondents had filed a suit for declaration in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una and in that suit the present applicant had preferred a counter claim.

¶9

The suit filed by the present respondents was decreed and the counter claim filed by the applicant was dismissed. Against the decree of the suit and dismissal of the counter claim, single appeal was preferred by the present appellant and the appeal preferred by the present applicant was dismissed on 01.11.2022.

¶10

Against the dismissal of the appeal preferred before the Additional District Judge(I), Una, the present applicant has

¶11

preferred two RSAs i.e. RSA No.44 of 2023 and the present appeal, which is barred by limitation.

¶12

The present matter is squarely covered by the mandate, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charan Singh vs. Ram Saroop, SLP(C) D.No.59467 of 2024 . The relevant paras No.7 to 9 are reproduced as under: .

¶13

“7. In our considered view, reliance was rightly placed by the first appellate court on precedents to hold that a composite appeal was not maintainable in law but, at the same time, the first appellate court ought to have borne in mind that courts exist for rendering justice albeit in accordance with law. Once the first appellate court found, correctly, that challenge to the common judgment of the trial court dated 16 th March, 2021 had been laid in a composite appeal but it is the requirement of law to file two appeals with separate memoranda of appeal, which had not been filed by the appellant, the court ought to have at least alerted the appellant by making him aware of the requirement of law and giving him the liberty to file a separate memorandum of appeal. In fact, in terms of Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, the appellate court has the power to even dispense with the requirement of law of filing copy of the impugned judgment twice over if it is part of the memorandum of appeal already filed. In any event, the defect was not such that it was incurable. The composite appeal was filed well within the period of limitation and, except for the fact that a separate memorandum of appeal was not filed, no other defect, far less serious defect, was shown to exist. If even after being alerted the appellant had failed to file a separate memorandum, the first appellate court would have been perfectly justified in

¶14

dismissing the appeal. It is not shown to us that any such endeavour was made.

¶15

8. The first appellate court having failed to alert the appellant, we would have expected the High Court to intervene to set right the wrong by its interdiction. Technicality of a nature such as this should not have been allowed to prevail over substantive justice. The appellant had filed two second appeals

¶16

before the High Court, meaning thereby that he had been properly advised while such advice might have been missing in the district of which the parties are residents. Unfortunately, the High Court did not address the point from the proper perspective either. While spurning the objection of learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently argued that there is no occasion to interfere since the appellant did not adhere to the law, we find good reason and ground to interfere.

¶17

9. For the ends of justice, we set aside the impugned second appellate judgment and decree of the High Court together with the first appellate judgment and decree. This would result in revival of the first appeal on the file of the first appellate court. We grant liberty to the appellant to file a separate memorandum of appeal, without certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, within three weeks from date. Once it is filed, the same shall be registered without limitation being treated as a bar. Should there be a default, the appellant shall lose the benefit of this order.”

¶18

In view of above, the instant application is allowed and the delay of 2 years, 8 months and 3 days, in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶19

Appeal be registered.

¶20

RSA No._________ of 2026

¶21

Notice.

¶22

Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, appears and waives service

¶23

of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate, is directed to supply copy of entire paper book to the learned counsel for the respondents.