IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R. No. 113 of 2007 Decided on: 23rd July, 2010. Chhewang ….Petitioner Versus Dagu Ram & another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate _________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 75 of 205 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kulu is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved since his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree, dismissing his suit for specific performance, has been dismissed. The delay is 130 days. According to the petitioner, the delay occurred only because at the relevant time, he happened to be in Great Britain and the time that was taken was only for the purpose of communication of information and transmitting the documents. The learned lower Appellate Court has taken the view that there is no evidence to substantiate the averments in the affidavit, accompanying the application for condonation of delay. But, it is seen that power of attorney of the applicant had been examined as AW-1 and in his affidavit which has been marked as AW-1/A he has tendered evidence in support of the averments. The postal receipt Ex. AW-1/B also has been marked. But according to the learned Lower Appellate Court, none from the courier has been examined and there is also no evidence as to whether the petitioner had filed a complaint regarding loss of papers in transit. So long as there is no dispute on the evidence, tendered by the petitioner and so long there is no dispute regarding the transit of papers through courier, since the delay in that regard has been explained on affidavit, the learned Lower Appellate Court should have taken a reasonable view and should have held that the petitioner had satisfactorily explained the delay of 130 days, particularly in view of his change of residence to Great Britan. 2. Having gone through the documents and the evidence tendered by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be given a chance, in the interest of justice, to pursue his case on merits since he has reasonably explained the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the order passed by the District Judge, Kullu in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2006 is set aside. The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. The Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), 23rd July, 2010(K) Chief Justice