Disposed¶15

Padma Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kapoor

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026RSA/225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act; dismissal of condonation application set aside; registration of First Appeal; permanent prohibitory injunction decree dated 11.12.2020; Senior Civil Judge Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu; Additional District Judge Kullu; Civil Suit No. 201 of 2018; Padma Devi v. Mahesh Kapoor; RSA No. 225 of 2023; Himachal Pradesh High Court; time bound disposal within six months; record returned.

What did the court decide?

Delay in preferring the First Appeal condoned; application under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed and order dated 8.6.2023 set aside; First Appellate Court requested to decide the appeal preferably within six months; appeal and pending application(s) disposed of; record to be returned back. ¶15

Padma Devi and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kapoor — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, filed by the appellants in the First Appeal for condonation of delay, should be allowed notwithstanding its dismissal on 8.6.2023. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The order dated 8.6.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside, and the application under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by applicant/appellant Padma Devi is allowed, by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

¶13

Key takeaways

At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the learned First Appellate Court is requested to decide the matter preferably within six months from the date of this order.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, RSA No. 225 of 2023, decided 8.7.2026 (Virender Singh, J.) — Padma Devi & ors. v. Mahesh Kapoor. The appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, filed in their First Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kullu, against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2020 of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 201 of 2018 ('Mahesh Kapoor versus Padma Devi & others'), whereby the respondent's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed, had been dismissed on 8.6.2023. With the respondent raising no objection to the application being allowed and the First Appeal being registered, the High Court set aside the order dated 8.6.2023, allowed the application, condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, and requested the First Appellate Court to decide the matter preferably within six months. The appeal stands disposed of, along with pending application(s), and the record is to be returned back.

¶1

12026:HHC:27565

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

RSA No. 225 of 2023

¶4

Decided on : 8.7.2026

¶5

Padma Devi & ors. … Appellants Versus Mahesh Kapoor …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Virender Singh, Judge

¶6

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants, against the order dated 8.6.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’, by virtue of which, an application, under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC, read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, filed by applicants/appellants has been ordered to be dismissed.

¶7

22026:HHC:27565

¶8

The aforesaid application was filed by appellants/applicants in an appeal, which has been preferred by them, against the judgment and decree, dated 11.12.2020, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 201 of 2018, titled as, ‘Mahesh Kapoor versus Padma Devi & others’.

¶9

By way of judgment and decree, dated 11.12.2020, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent Mahesh Kapoor, for permanent prohibitory injunction, against the appellant.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has no objection if the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the First Appeal, preferred by appellant Padma Devi be registered. However, a prayer has been made to direct the learned First Appellate Court to decide the appeal, in a time bound manner.

¶11

In view of this, order dated 8.6.2023, is set aside and the application under Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC, read

¶12

32026:HHC:27565

¶13

with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by applicant/appellant Padma Devi, is ordered to be allowed, by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

¶14

In view of request made by learned counsel for the respondent, the learned First Appellate Court is requested to decide the matter, preferably within six months from today.

¶15

In view of above, the present appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶16

Record be returned back.

¶17

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶18

8.7.2026

¶19

Kalpana

Padma Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Jan Dei and Others

Hem Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indu Bala and Others

Sh. Rajesh Vs Kushal Singh

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs Sukh Ram(Deceased through Lr's) and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs Prem Singh and Ors.