Varinder Kumar Soi vs Gurdev Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6121 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Varinder Kumar Soi vs Gurdev Singh on 11 December, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




120

CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015

Varinder Kaur Soi                               ....Applicant/Petitioner

                                         V/s
Gurdev Singh
                                                      ....Respondents
Date of decision: 11.12.2025
Date of uploading: 11.12.2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-7446-2015

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-

petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the

accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed

impugning the judgment dated 14.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant-

petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.05.2011 of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate Class, Ferozepur whereby respondent was

acquitted from the charges framed against him in case FIR No.57 dated

12.06.2006 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 419, 427,

120-B IPC, at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while

seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 235 days, has argued that

the delay has occurred on account of the fact that the applicant-petitioner did

not receive any information from her counsel appearing before the Sessions

1 of 6

CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015 Page |2

Court regarding the decision of the appeal filed by her. Learned counsel

appearing for the applicant/petitioner further submits that the applicant-

petitioner only after coming to know about the decision in the appeal had

applied for certified copy of the judgment on 22.09.2014. Learned counsel

for the applicant-petitioner has further submitted that an application for

condonation of delay ought to be considered liberally, particularly, where the

applicant-petitioner has good case on merits. Learned counsel for the

applicant-petitioner has further argued that the circumstances of the case

indicate that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor

deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned. On these submissions,

condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the revision petition has been

sought.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and

have perused the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court

passed in CRR(F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another,

decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

"8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned.

2 of 6

CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015 Page |3

II.A Court ought to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant.

III.It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration by a Court.

IV.Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on 'day to-day basis' for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approach.

V.In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while granting an application for condonation of delay. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein.

VI. The factum; of non-applicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position(s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. within stipulated time and resultant effects thereof; will indubitably be a pertinent factor for consideration of a plea for condonation of delay. VII.A plea for condonation of delay by the State as also its instrumentalities has to be accorded a more liberal approach since the machinery involved in their working is impersonal in nature & hidden factors working therein cannot be given a complete amiss.

VIII.The discretion of a Court, while considering a plea for condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent nor feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. Needless to emphasize that exercise of such judicial discretion/power ought to be within the four corners of well settled principles of justice, good conscience and fair play."

5. More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy

Collector (LA), Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 286, has observed as under:

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

            xxx                     xxx                    xxx                    xxx
            vii)    Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning
            the delay; and



                                  3 of 6

 CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015
                                                                             Page |4

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

6. More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as

Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others,

Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1104, has observed as under:

"171. The next submission that was advanced on behalf of the respondents herein is that, in matters pertaining to condonation of delay, a certain degree of leeway ought to be accorded to the Government and Public Authorities owing to the innate omplexities in the way the State apparatus functions. The argument is that due to the inherent bureaucracy and involvement of various departments of different hierarchy which are endemic to the functioning of the State and its instrumentalities, unavoidable delays tend to crop up even without any deliberate intention, and thus, the courts ought to be pragmatic and liberal where the State or any of its instrumentalities is seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal or application, as the case may be. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore reported in (1988) 2 SCC 142."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

212. The law as it presently stands, post the decision of Postmaster General (supra), is unambiguous and clear. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay. Absent such justification, delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of the identity of the applicant. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

218. However, equally important to note is that wherever, any explanation is sought to be given on account of bureaucratic lethargy and inherent complexities of governmental decision- making, the same more often than not would invariably always is an "excuse", as experience has shown us, depicted from a long line of decisions of this Court. It is at this stage, where the decision of Postmaster General (supra) assumes significance. It seeks to convey the messages, that court should not be agnostic, to how the State or its instrumentalities, often tend to take the recourse of condonation of delay in a casual manner."

4 of 6

CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015 Page |5

7. Condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the accompanying

revision petition is sought for on the following relevant averments:

"2. That the impugned judgment was passed by the Ld.ASJ, Ferozepur on 14.03.2014, but petitioner did not receive any information from his counsel regarding the decision of the appeal.

3. That when the petitioner contacted her counsel the she came to know that the appeal filed by her has been dismissed on 14.03.2014 and thereafter оп 22.09.2014 the petitioner applied for obtained certified copy of the judgment and received the certified copy on 09.10.2014.

4. That due to the above facts and circumstances the delay of 235 days has been caused in filing the present criminal revision. petition."

8. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly show that no

reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-

petitioner to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the accompanying

revision petition. This application, apart from bereft of any specific

details/particulars which may reflect bona fide on part of the applicant-

petitioner in pursuing her case, rather reflects a deliberate attempt on part of

the applicant-petitioner to somehow entangle the respondent-accused in

prolonged litigation. The applicant-petitioner has failed to provide any

concrete explanation or document to demonstrate her genuine efforts in

pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause much less

sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone the

significant delay of 235 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The

delay is both inordinate and inexplicable. Merely attributing the delay to

unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to

substantiate these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for

condonation. The applicant-petitioner has neither shown continuous interest

in the case nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that

could explain such an extensive delay.

5 of 6

CRM-7446-2015 in/& CRR-825-2015 Page |6

8.1 The explanation for the delay contained in the application

seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said

to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking

condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated

hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay of 235 days in

filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal.

Decision

9. The application (CRM-7446-2015) seeking condonation of delay

of 235 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is dismissed. Since

the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the main

revision petition stands dismissed as well accordingly.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

                                                   (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                      JUDGE
December 11, 2025
Naveen
            Whether speaking/reasoned:         Yes/No
            Whether reportable:                Yes/No




                                  6 of 6