IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 582 of 2008. Date of decision: 8.3.2011 Hari Chand …Petitioner. Versus Additional Director, Consolidation & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. For respondents 2 & 4. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For remaining respondents. None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition has to be rejected on the ground that it is hit by the principles of delay and laches. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 27.7.2006. The present petition was filed on 12.11.2008. The only explanation given in the petition explaining the delay in filing the petition is as follows:- “That the petitioner could not approach this Hon'ble Court 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. earlier due to paucity of fund and also due to the age factor otherwise, he has been pursuing his case with due diligence.” : 2 : 2. To say the least, this averment is an absolutely vague averment which is not supported by any other material. It would be pertinent to mention that the private respondents herein had filed a suit qua the same land before the Civil Court and the petitioner had contested the suit in the Civil Court. His plea that he could not approach the Court earlier due to paucity of funds seems to be ridiculous. The delay in this case is not small one. The petitioner has approached this Court after 2 years 3 months and 16 days and therefore the petition is rejected on this short ground alone. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge March 8, 2011. (Krn guleria)