IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.291 of 2008. Date of decision: 04.03.2009. Gurdev Singh & Others …Petitioners Versus Dalku & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Pawan Gautam, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The respondents before the learned appellate Court have challenged the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-(1), Kangra at Dharamshala on an application moved by the respondents herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class-(1), Nurpur decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel has assailed the order on a number of grounds and urged that limitation settles right in favour of a party and in the absence of an adequate explanation, which can be accepted in law, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order condoning delay. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the appellate Court. One of the grounds urged before the learned Court below was that the delay in filing the appeal was owing to the mistake committed by counsel and is neither deliberate nor intentional. On the evidence as produced on the record, the learned Court held that the quality of the explanation offered was sufficient to allow the benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the applicants-respondents. The application was, therefore, allowed. I do not find anything in the judgment which would dis-entitle the respondents from claiming the benefit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This petition is accordingly disposed of. The order passed by the learned appellate Court is upheld. However, the respondents shall pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioners herein on the first date of appearance before the learned trial Court. It is clarified that in case costs are not paid, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge shall be deemed to have been set aside. CMP No.713 of 2008. Infructuous. March 4, 2009. (Dev Darhsan Sud) (aks) Judge.