Gulshan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 375 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gulshan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 January, 2026

                                                                            1
CRR-
CRR-1278-
    1278-2025




144
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                               CRR-
                               CRR-1278-
                                   1278-2025

Gulshan Kumar
                                                                   Petitioner
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                       versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                               ....Respondentss

Date of decision: January 19, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 19, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner
                                                 petitioner.

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

CRM-

CRM-20164- 20164-2025

Application herein has been filed on behalf of the applicant applicant--

petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the

accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed

impugning the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and the judgment dated

19.10.2024,, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna

Nagar, whereby, whereby non-applicant-respondents respondents No.2 to 8 were acquitted of the

offence(s) levelled against them.

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

seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 96 days, has argued that

1 of 6

CRR-

CRR-1278- 1278-2025

the delay has occurred as the counsel for the applicant-petitioner had not

inform him regarding the decision in the appeal and the same was disclosed

to him in the month of January, 2025. Thereafter, the applicant-petitioner

immediately obtained requisite documents from the counsel in the Court

below and filed the instant revision petition along with an application

seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel has further asserted that the

registry raised objection in the petition on 24.03.2025, the counsel for the

applicant-petitioner collected the file from the registry, but kept it with him

in some wrong brief. Later, on the asking of the applicant-petitioner, his

counsel immediately removed the requisite objections and re-filed the

revision petition, and, thus, delay of 96 days occurred due to aforesaid

reasons. 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 96 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.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the paper-book.

2 of 6

CRR-

CRR-1278- 1278-2025

4. 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.

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."

3 of 6

CRR-

CRR-1278- 1278-2025

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

(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. Condonation of delay of 96 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.

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."

4 of 6

CRR-

CRR-1278- 1278-2025

7. 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 96 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 private respondent(s) 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 96 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.

7.1 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 96 days in

filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal.

5 of 6

CRR-

CRR-1278- 1278-2025

Decision

8. The application (CRM-20164-2025) seeking condonation of

delay of 96 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.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE January 19, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

6 of 6