Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Insurer’s Appeal After 18-Month Refiling Delay, Finding No Sufficient Cause

The applicant-insurer sought condonation of a delay of one year, six months and eleven days in re-filing its appeal after removal of Registry objections. It said its counsel’s clerk had removed objections on 14 August 2024, but later left the office; counsel believed the matter would be listed. A different clerk discovered on 1 July 2025 that the appeal remained under objections, which were then removed.

Respondents opposed the application, challenging the explanation and noting that it was unsupported by an affidavit.

Rule 8 of Chapter 2 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Scrutiny, Maintenance of Judicial Records, Administrative and Executive Business) Rules, 1997, allowed seven days at a time and twenty days in aggregate for removing objections; delay beyond that period was to be dealt with under Rule 7 of Chapter 6-C of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Appellate Side and Original Side Rules, 1997.

The Registrar could condone delay in removing objections up to four months in aggregate; a longer delay required an application before a Judge.

The applicant had to establish cogent and satisfactory reasons constituting sufficient cause, including that it had pursued the matter diligently and that the delay was beyond its control and unavoidable.

Relying on Brij Mohan v. Sunita, MAT Appeal No. 21/2009 (Delhi High Court, 13 January 2010), and Asha Sharma and others v. Sanimiya Vanijiya P. Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2692, the Court held that delay in re-filing could not be condoned mechanically or without a reasonable explanation.

The Registry objections were not finally removed until after the permitted period, and the resulting delay exceeded the Registrar’s four-month condonation authority.

The explanation—that the clerk had left and counsel assumed the matter would be listed—showed negligence rather than diligence, and did not account satisfactorily for the prolonged delay. The application also lacked supporting affidavits and material particulars, leaving the asserted circumstances unsubstantiated.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court concluded that the applicant had not established sufficient cause for condonation.

Consequently, CMP(M) No. 1219 of 2025 and the main appeal, FAOST/33056/2023, were also dismissed; any pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.