Condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act requires plausible, substantiated explanation; vague pleas of counsel non-intimation, unsubstantiated by affidavits or details despite objections, contradicted by representation record, deemed concocted, warranting dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This application has been preferred by applicant for condonation of delay of 185 days in filing Revision Petition against order dated 24.1.2025 passed in petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in CIS Case No. 47 of 2020, titled as Smt. Geeta Devi and Another Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Dhiman.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application claiming maintenance for her and her minor daughter respondent No. 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from present applicant Kuldeep Kumar Dhiman, which has been partly allowed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr by awarding monthly maintenance to petitioner No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition, I.e.. 11.1.2019, whereas petition qua petitioner No. 1 has been dismissed.

3. It has been pleaded on behalf of applicant that delay in filing Revision Petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, but for the reasons that applicant was not duly informed by his previous counsel about passing of impugned order dated 24.1.2025 and, therefore, applicant remained unaware about status of the case, and he came to know about passing of order only when his close friend, who is also an Advocate, checked the Court record on behalf of applicant in third week of June, 2025 and thereafter informed the applicant accordingly.

4. According to applicant immediately after knowing about passing of order, he applied for certified copy of impugned order on 24.6.2025, which was delivered to him on 25.6.2025. Thereafter in second week of July, 2025, applicant met present counsel, discussed legal aspects and implication of impugned order in detail and on receiving advise, instructed to file present Revision Petition without any further delay.

5. With aforesaid submissions, it has been stated that delay in filing the Revision Petition is bonafide for the above stated reasons and by delaying filing of petition, applicant has not derived any benefit, rather he will suffer irreparable loss, if delay is not condoned and main matter is not adjudicated on merits, and allowing the application will not cause any prejudice to the respondents, instead rejection of application will cause grave injustice to the applicant.

6. Application has been vehemently opposed by and on behalf of respondents. Detailed reply has also been filed opposing the application.

7. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents that applicant was party before the Family Court and had been pursuing his case and was coming to Rampur on the dates fixed in the case regularly and, therefore, there cannot be any reason for applicant to be unaware about the status of the case. Further that applicant has not disclosed about the identity of his Advocate friend, nor there is any reasonable explanation why applicant was not aware about the status of the case and negligent to know the same, more particularly about the decision of the case. It has been further stated that there is no explanation that why applicant asked his Advocate friend to check the Court record on his behalf during third week of June 2025, instead contacting his counsel first through whom he was contesting the case and was duly represented by his counsel.

8. It has been further contended on behalf of respondents that applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands because there is no plausible explanation for causing delay, much less substantial