IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 267 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Asha Devi and another Petitioners. Versus Nand Lal. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 19th May, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that aggrieved by the judgement passed by the learned trial Court the petitioners here-in filed an appeal before the District Judge, Solan. This appeal was rejected on 12th May, 2004 on the ground that the same was time barred and no justifiable cause was made out for condoning the delay. 3. The petitioners thereafter filed CMPMO No.224 of 2004 in this Court which was disposed of in the following terms:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 “8.12.2005 Present: Mr. R.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgement dated 12th May, 2004 as passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, I feel that perhaps the learned Court below has taken too strict a view about the reasons for condoning the delay in filing the time barred appeal. The impugned order is set-aside. The delay in filing the time barred appeal by the petitioners is condoned subject to the petitioners’ paying Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent within four weeks from today. As a consequence of the condonation of delay, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall stand allowed. The appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits. 8th December, 2005 SD/- (V.K.Gupta), C.J.” 4. A perusal of this order shows that this Court taking a liberal view of the matter directed that the appeal be heard on merits subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- being paid by the petitioners to the respondent within a 3 period of four weeks from the date of order i.e. 8th December, 2005. Resultantly, the costs had to be paid on or before 5th January, 2006. These costs were not paid for a period of almost four years. On 28.2.2009 the petitioners filed an application in the Court of the learned District Judge stating therein that she was not aware of the order dated 8th December, 2005 passed in the petition filed by her being CMPMO No.224 of 2004. A copy of the order passed by this Court was enclosed but there is not even a single word in the application as to when this copy was obtained and how the petitioners came to know about the disposal of their petition. 5. There is no allegation that the petitioners ever made any effort to find out from their counsel what had happened to the petition filed by them in this Court. Only a bald allegation was made that the appeal has not been taken up for hearing and disposed of and therefore, the same may be called for from the record room and be heard and decided on merits. It would be pertinent to mention that even alongwith this application the costs were not tendered either to the defendant nor were they deposited in Court. It was only at the time of the arguing the matter the petitioners counsel made a statement that the petitioners are willing to pay the costs as if the 4 petitioners were giving some donation or charity to the respondent. 6. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the application. In fact, such an application could not have been filed before the District Judge because if in any case time is granted by a superior Court it is only such superior Court which can extend the time and not the Court subordinate to it. I find that no valid reason for extending the time has been given even in the application filed before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 6th September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™