JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

CRM-7905-2019

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 775 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 13.07.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing the appeal preferred by the present applicant-petitioner, acquitting the respondent Nos.2 & 3 from the charges in FIR No.220 dated 12.08.2011 under Sections 292(2), 384 read with Section 120B IPC, at Police Station City Tohana, Distict Fatehabad. The applicant- petitioner, by way of instant revision petition, impugns the abovesaid judgment.

2. Notice was issued in the application for condonation of delay. Office note indicates that dasti notices issued to private respondents have not been received back served or otherwise. In the peculiar factual milieu of the case, this Court proceeds to decide the application without service upon the private respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 775 days, has argued that the the applicant–petitioner had approached the office of the learned counsel in September 2016 for filing a revision petition against the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Fatehabad. Upon perusal of the documents initially supplied by the petitioner, learned counsel demanded certain additional papers from the lower court record. After receipt of the complete set of documents, the revision petition was prepared and filed with a delay of 55 days. However, the Registry raised certain objections, which were duly complied with. Thereafter, the paper book was handed over to the clerk of the counsel for re-filing in the Registry, but due to inadvertence, the same could not be filed. When learned counsel later enquired about the status and whereabouts of the case, it came to notice that the file had inadvertently been handed over to another client whose matter had already been disposed of, along with his own file. Thereafter, after lot of efforts, the office of the learned counsel was able to trace the file and then the present revision petition has been filed without any further delay. 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 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.

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 No. 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 ough