IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 228 of 2004 Date of decision: 08.12.2010. Amar Singh . …Petitioner. Versus Barfi Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent No.2: Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, dismissing the appeal of the applicant as being barred by limitation. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to an appeal filed under Section 67 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act. 2. This finding of the learned ACJM is totally wrong and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Gian Chand vs. Nand Lal and 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 another, 2005(2) Shim. LC 155, wherein this Court held as follows:- “7. Clearly the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is both a special as well as a local law and equally clearly, Section 67 of this Act provides a period of limitation for filing appeals which is different from the period prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. That being the case, apart from Section 3 of the Limitation Act, Sections 4 to 24 are also applicable and, therefore, if with respect to a time barred appeal preferred under Section 67 of 1994 Act the appellant seeks condonation of delay, Section 5 of the Limitation Act immediately is attracted and comes to his rescue and aid and he, as a matter of right, is entitled to, through the medium of such an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act pray for condonation of delay in filing a time-barred appeal. That right vests in such an appellant. Whether on facts and/on merits delay is to be condoned, or it is not to be condoned, is a different matter altogether. The fact remains that the right of seeking condonation of delay vests in such an appellant and that right inheres in him by virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. This right cannot be taken away by juxtaposing something from Section 60 of the Act which is not at all related or applicable to Section 67 of the Act.” 3. As per the averments made in the appeal the appeal was within limitation. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate does not seem to have gone into this point and only because the appeal was filed 30 days after the order having 3 being passed he has rejected this appeal. He shall now consider the question whether the appeal is within time after deducting the period spent in obtaining the copy of the order and will decide whether the appeal is within limitation. 4. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the matter is remanded back to the learned ACJM Ghumarwin to decide the same afresh. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin on January 12, 2011. No order as to costs. 8th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge