[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Aditya Kumar vs Pooja Sachdeva on 31 December, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
.
Aditya Kumar Vs Pooja Sachdeva
Cr. MP(M) No. 2727 of 2025
31.12.2025 Present: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate, for the applicant.
of
Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate, for the
respondent.
rt The applicant has preferred the accompanying
revision against the order dated 05.07.2025, passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI
Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby the appeal
preferred by the applicant has been ordered to be partly
allowed.
2. Since, the revision has been filed after the
prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present
application for condonation of delay, has been filed.
3. By way of present application, the delay of
about 25 days, in filing the revision, has been sought to
be condoned, on the ground that after the decision, the
officeclerk of the Counsel for the applicant, before the
learned trial Court, had applied for the certified copy of
judgment dated 05.07.2025, on 08.07.2025, which was
prepared on 09.07.2025 and was delivered on
14.07.2025, to the applicant. However, the said
certified copy is stated to be misplaced in the office of
the learned Counsel and the same was traced out only
.
on 30.08.2025 and thereafter, revision petition has been
filed.
4. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that
of
the delay caused is beyond the control and power of the
applicant.
5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
rt
made to condone the delay. The application is
supported by an affidavit.
6. When, put to notice, the application has been
contested by the respondent, on the ground that there is
no justification of the delay in filing the revision after
the prescribed period of limitation.
7. The ground for condonation of delay, as
pleaded in the application is also stated to be not
sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The
accompanying revision petition is also stated to be an
afterthought act and a counterblast to the revision
petition filed by the nonapplicant bearing CMPMO No.
493 of 2025, against the order dated 05.07.2025.
8. On merits, the contents of the application have
also been assailed on the similar grounds. Lastly, it has
been pleaded that the applicant could not make out a
case for condonation of delay.
9. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Sameer
Thakur, Advocate, for the nonapplicant prayed that the
.
application be dismissed. Reply is duly supported by
the affidavit of the nonapplicant Pooja Sachdeva.
10. Heard.
of
11. By way of judgment dated 05.07.2025, the
learned Appellate Court, has partly allowed the appeal
preferred by the applicant.
rt Thereafter, the present
revision petition has been filed, which is barred by
limitation, and the ground for condonation of delay, has
been pleaded about the fact that after the receipt of the
certified copy, the same has been misplaced in the office
of the learned Counsel, before the learned Appellate
Court.
12. The said assertion has been contested by the
nonapplicant, however, the reply is totally silent about
any negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant,
in not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of
limitation.
13. When, the negligence or inaction has not been
pleaded, then the version, which has been given in the
application, which is also supported by the affidavit of
the applicant, this Court is of the view that the delay in
not preferring the revision before this Court within
prescribed period of limitation is not intentional. No
object is going to be achieved, by the applicant, in not
preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of
.
limitation, had the applicant not been prevented to do
so, by the reasons, as mentioned in the application.
14. Another ground, for condonation of delay, is
of
that order dated 05.07.2025, has also been assailed by
the nonapplicant, by filing CMPMO No. 493 of 2025. In
such situation, this Court is of the view that since the
rt
order in issue, has also been called in question by the
nonapplicant, by filing CMPMO No. 493 of 2025, the
matter should be decided on merits and not on the
ground of technicalities.
15. Considering the above facts, the application is
allowed and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to
be condoned.
16. Application is, thus, disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. _______ of 2025
17. Vide order of the even date, passed in Cr.
MP(M) No. 2727 of 2025, delay in filing the Criminal
Revision has been ordered to be condoned. Be
registered.
18. Service is complete.
19. Be tagged with CMPMO No. 493 of 2025.
20. List on 18.03.2026.
Cr. MPST No. 9262 & 9263 of 2025
.
21. Applications for exemption in filing certified/
typed/original copies of documents is allowed, as prayed
for and are disposed of.
of
22. The present application is dismissed, being not
pressed, at this stage.
rt
( Virender Singh )
Judge
31st December, 2025
(Pramod)
