Bhag Ram vs State Of Haryana & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 491 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhag Ram vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 21 January, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




115

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015

Bhag Ram                                        ....Applicant/Petitioner

                                         V/s
State of Haryana and another
                                                      ....Respondents
Date of decision: 21.01.2026
Date of uploading: 21.01.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:    Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

            Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

            None for respondent No.2.

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

CRM-12183-2015

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

petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 980 days in filing the

accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed

impugning the judgment dated 21.05.2012, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fatehabad setting aside the order of conviction passed by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad dated 13.08.2009 against respondent

No.2 (herein).

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

seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 980 days, has argued that

the delay has occurred on account of the fact that the applicant came to know

about the acquittal only in the month of December, 2012. Thereafter, the

1 of 6

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015 Page |2

applicant approached the learned State Counsel with a request to file an appeal

or revision before this Court. Thereafter, the applicant awaited the filing of

the appeal/revision by the State. Learned counsel further argued that it was

only in the month of December, 2014, the applicant came to know that no

appeal or revision had been filed by the State. Consequently, the applicant

himself filed the present revision in January, 2015. Certain objections were

raised by the Registry, pursuant whereto the revision was re-filed after

removing the said objections. 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 980

days in filing the revision petition has been sought.

3. Notice of the application was issued to respondent and earlier Mr.

Amit Choudhary, Advocate had filed memorandum of appearance on behalf

of respondent No.2. Today, none has appeared on behalf of the said

respondent.

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

have perused the paper-book.

5. 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

2 of 6

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015 Page |3

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."

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:

3 of 6

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015 Page |4

"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."

6.1. 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

4 of 6

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015 Page |5

"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."

7. Condonation of delay of 980 days in filing the accompanying

revision petition is sought for on the following relevant averments:

"That the appellant could to know regarding the acquittal only in the month of December, 2012. The appellant thereafter has approached to the State Counsel to file the appeal or revision before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant was waiting that appeal/ revision will be filed by the State Government before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant came in the Hon'ble High Court in the month of December, 2014 and found that по appeal has been filed. The appellant thereafter has filed in the month of January, 2015. The registry raised the objection and thereafter the revision has again been filed. In all this process the above mentioned delay has been occurred. The delay is not intentional and deliberate but due to the reason explained above."

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 980 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 980 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The

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

5 of 6

CRM-12183-2015 in/& CRR-1334-2015 Page |6

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.

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 980 days in

filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal.

Decision

9. The application (CRM-12183-2015) seeking condonation of

delay of 980 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
January 21, 2026
Naveen


            Whether speaking/reasoned:         Yes/No
            Whether reportable:                Yes/No




                                  6 of 6