Allowed¶9

Karam Chand v. Raftar Thakur and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2026CMP.M/298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Regular Second Appeal; CMP(M) No. 298 of 2025; RSAST No. 6463/25; Karam Chand vs. Raftar Thakur; suit of recovery; decree against defendant without evidence or documentary proof of damage; perverse and unsustainable findings; substantial questions of law; cost Rs.5000/-; Additional District Judge judgment 8.1.2024 upholding trial Court decree; IGMC Shimla treatment since 18.1.2023; Romesh Verma, Judge; record requisitioned.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 10 months and 9 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal granted; application allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by the applicant to respondent No.2 within four weeks; appeal registered and admitted on the two substantial questions of law. ¶9

Karam Chand Vs Raftar Thakur and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the legal principle applicable to the suit of recovery and committed illegality by decreeing the civil suit against the appellant/defendant without any evidence and documentary proof of damage as averred in the suit. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 10 months and 9 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal is condoned and the condonation application is allowed, subject to the applicant paying cost of Rs.5000/- to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Regular Second Appeal is registered and admitted on the two substantial questions of law framed above; the record is to be requisitioned and the matter listed in due course.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay granted: Karam Chand, applicant/appellant, sought condonation of delay of 10 months and 9 days in filing a Regular Second Appeal against the judgment dated 8.1.2024 of the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court (a decree of the suit of recovery against the appellant/defendant) was upheld. Delay attributed to the applicant's continuous treatment since 18.1.2023 following leg surgery at IGMC, Shimla. The application, resisted by respondent No.2 through Mr. Sanjay K. Sharma, Advocate, was allowed by the Court (Romesh Verma, Judge) subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to respondent No.2 within four weeks. The appeal was registered (RSA ____ of 2026; RSAST No. 6463/25) and admitted on two substantial questions of law: (i) whether the Courts below erred in decreeing the recovery suit against the appellant/defendant without evidence or documentary proof of damage, and (ii) whether their judgments and findings are perverse and unsustainable. Record requisitioned; matter listed in due course (28.04.2026 fixed for the CMP).

¶1

Karam Chand vs. Raftar Thakur and another

¶2

CMP(M) No. 298 of 2025

¶3

11.03.2026

¶4

Present: Ms. Shikha Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/ applicant.

¶5

Mr. Sanjay K. Sharma Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶6

Present application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal. It has been averred in the application that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 8.1.2024, whereby the judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court was upheld . In para 3 of the application, the reasons have been assigned stating that the applicant remained under treatment since 18.1.2023 on account of surgery on his leg in the IGMC, Shimla. Therefore, on that account he could not persue with the legal formalities and in that process delay has occurred which is neither intentional nor willful but the same has occurred under unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicant.

¶7

The application has been vehemently resisted by Mr. Sanjay K. Sharma, Advocate and he has prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶8

Keeping in view the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an afÏdavit and in view of the submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicant, the delay of 10 months and 9 days in filing the

¶9

Regular Second Appeal is condoned and the present application is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the applicant to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks, positively

¶10

List on 28.04.2026.

¶11

RSA _____of 2026(RSAST No. 6463/25)

¶12

Appeal be registered.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Admit on the following substantial questions of

¶15

law:

¶16

Whether both the Ld. Courts below have not appreciated the legal principle applicable to the suit of recovery and further committed illegality by decreeing the civil suit against the appellant/ defendant without any evidence and documentary proof of damage, if any as averred in the suit?

¶17

Whether the judgments and decrees as passed by both the Ld. Courts below and the findings given by them are perverse and unsustainable under the law?

¶18

Record be requisitioned.

¶19

List in due course.

¶20

( Romesh Verma) Judge

¶21

March 11, 2026 ( veena)

Karam Chand v. Raftar Thakur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Chand v. Raftar Thakur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netar Singh Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others

Dharam Dass deleted through Lr'S and Others Vs Inder Singh

Kamla Devi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others

Hspebl and Others Vs Raghuvir Singh and Others

Hpsebl and Another Vs Kanta Devi and Others

Rasu and Ors. Vs Keshav Ram