Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs Gurbachan Singh And Anr on 21 November, 2025
1
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
Gurmeet Singh
Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
Gurbachan Singh and another
....Respondentss
Date of decision: November 21,
21, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 21, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
Ms. Deeksha, Advocate for
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Adhiraj
hiraj Singh, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-
CRM-224-
224-2022
Application herein has been filed on behalf of the applicant
applicant--
petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the accompanying
revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the
judgment dated 06.09.2019,, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib,
Sahib whereby the appeal preferred by non-applicant-respondent
respondent
No.1,, namely, Gurbachan Singh, against the judgment/order
order of
conviction/sentence
/sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby, he was convicted/ sentenced for
commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'),
'IPC'), was allowed while setting aside the said
1 of 6
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
judgment/order of conviction/sentence dated 06.02.2017 and non-applicant-
respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge(s) framed against him.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while
seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 233 days, has argued that
the delay has occurred on account of the applicant-petitioner's remaining under
bona fide impression that revision petition was to be filed by the State against
the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel has argued that the
applicant-petitioner was not at all aware about acquittal of non-applicant-
respondent No.1, and he came to know qua the same only on 25.02.2020, when
he had received summons in a defamation case (titled as Gurbachan Singh
versus Gurmeet Singh (CS No.50 of 2020) instituted by non-applicant-
respondent No.1 against him, thereby, requiring him to cause appearance in the
said case. Learned counsel has iterated that, upon gaining knowledge of said
defamation case, he immediately approached his counsel and applied for
certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2019, on 27.02.2020,
which was received on 03.03.2020. 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. On these submissions, condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the
revision petition has been sought. It has been further contended that no
prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents, in case, the instant
application is allowed and the instant revision petition is heard on merits.
Learned counsel has further argued that circumstances of the case indicate that
the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate &,
hence, delay deserves to be condoned.
2 of 6
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported by State counsel,
vehemently opposes the prayer for condonaiton of delay. They submit that the
applicant-petitioner has failed to offer any cogent, credible or satisfactory
explanation accounting for the inordinate delay of 233 days. It has been further
argued that the reasons projected in the application are vague, omnibus and
bereft of any material particulars and thus fall for short of the threshold
required for invoking the court's discretionary power of condonation. Hence,
the prayer for condonation of delay deserves outright rejection.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the paper-book.
5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court
(F)--1844
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.
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.
3 of 6
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
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."
6. 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
(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."
7. Condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the accompanying
revision petition is sought for on the following relevant averments:
"2. That the vide judgment / order dated 6.2.2017,
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib has
rightly convicted the accused/ respondent No.1 in case 113, dated
31.08.2012, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, 1860, Police Station
Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the petitioner was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC for Rigorous Imprisonment for
two years and with fine of Rs.10,000/- vide Police Challan No. 61/CHI
1216 of 12.10.2012.
4 of 6
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
3. That however, vide impugned judgment dated 06.09.2019, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib has illegally acquitted the accused/ respondent No.1
without considering the documentary evidence on record.
4. That the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the
present petition was to be filed by the State against the judgment of
acquittal. Moreover, the petitioner was not aware about the acquittal of the
respondent No.1. He only came to know about the same on 25.02.2020,
when he received the summons of a defamation case filed by the
respondent No.1 against him titled as Gurbachan Singh Vs. Gurmeet
Singh (CS No. 50 of 2020), in which the next date for appearance is
16.04.2020 and now it is 23.07.2020. The petitioner immediately
approached his counsel and applied on 27.02.2020 for obtaining the
certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2019 and the same was
received on 3.3.2020. The copy of above summon will be produced as and
when required by this Hon'ble Court.
5. That thus, the delay of 233 days has occurred in filing the present
revision petition, which is not intentional or deliberate on the part of the
appellant, but due to aforesaid bonafide reason."
8. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly shows that no
reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-
petitioner to condone the delay of 233 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 his
case, rather reflects a deliberate attempt on the 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 his 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 233 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
5 of 6
CRR-
CRR-30-
30-2022
continuous interest in the case nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable
circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay.
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 233 days in filing the
accompanying revision petition merits dismissal.
Decision
9. The application (CRM-224-2022) seeking condonation of delay of
233 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)
GOEL)
JUDGE
November 21,
21, 2025
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
