IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 269 of 2001 Date of decision : 11.12.2008 Bishan Dass and another Petitioners. Versus Chairman, BBMB and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. J.R.Sharma, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Civil Revision is directed against the judgement dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal. Hence, the present civil revision. It is not necessary to give the facts of the case since the only question which arises is whether the learned lower appellate Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal or not. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Mandi. The said suit was decided against the plaintiffs on 9.2.1995. On 10.2.1995 certified copy of the judgement of the trial 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Court was applied for. However, copy of the decree sheet was not applied for on the said date. The certified copy of the judgement of the trial Court was prepared and delivered to the plaintiffs on 24th April, 1995. According to the petitioners, copy was in fact supplied on 16.5.1995 and when they approached the counsel on the same date they were informed that copy of the decree sheet is also required for filing of an appeal and therefore on 16.5.1995 itself the copy of the decree sheet was applied. The plaintiffs filed the appeal without certified copy of the decree sheet on 22.5.1995. Certified copy of the decree sheet was supplied to the plaintiffs on 12.6.1995 and the same was filed in Court on 13.6.1995. The plaintiffs prayed for condonation of the delay on the ground that they for the first time came to know that decree sheet has not been applied for, or is required to be filed with the appeal on 16.5.1995. The learned Additional District Judge has rejected the application mainly on the ground that whereas the plaintiffs have stated that the copy of the judgement was delivered to them on 16.5.1995, the record reveals that the copy was in fact delivered to them on 22.4.1995. Even if, that be so, the fact remains that the party would only be aware of the documents necessary for filing of the appeal when it went to its counsel and this fact is not disputed that the plaintiffs approached the counsel on 16.5.1995 itself. In fact, the counsel even without waiting for copy of the decree sheet filed the appeal though the office raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal. The approach of the learned Additional District Judge to say the least is hyper-technical. The law by now is well settled that parties could not suffer for mistake or negligence on the part of their counsel. In the present case, the party through its counsel 3 applied for certified copy of the judgement one day after the delivery of the judgement. It was for the counsel to have ensured that all the documents necessary for filing of the appeal have been applied for. Even if, it be assumed that the judgement was delivered on 22.4.1995, the mere fact that the decree sheet was not applied for between 22.4.1995 to 16.5.1995 is not such a glaring negligence as to disentitle the plaintiffs from having their appeal heard on merits. They met their counsel for filing of the appeal only on 16.5.1995 when it was realized that the certified copy of the decree sheet is not available, immediately the same was applied for. The plaintiffs have shown more than sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995 is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned lower appellate Court is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. Since the post of ADJ, Mandi is presently lying vacant, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Mandi, on 12th January, 2009. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the lower appeallate court is sent to the court of the learned District Judge, Mandi, as early as possible so as to reach there well before the date fixed. The learned District Judge, Mandi, may retain the case in his own Court or may assign this case to some other Court but the Court to which the appeal is assigned shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal as early as possibly, but in any event not later than 31st July, 2009. December 11, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™