Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 31959
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
KUNAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRLRD/425/2022
The court has the discretion to condone delay in filing a revision, but only if the applicant shows sufficient cause for the delay.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - DELAY CONDONATION - [The court dismissed the delay condonation application filed by the revisionist, holding that the explanation offered for the delay in filing the revision was not satisfactory and smacked of mala fides and dilatory tactics.]
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a delay condonation application for condoning the delay in filing a revision against orders passed by the lower courts in a domestic violence case filed by his wife. The revisionist claimed that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist had not offered a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 740 days in filing the revision, even after excluding the period of the pandemic. The court held that the revisionist's explanation smacked of mala fides and dilatory tactics, and that he was attempting to evade his liability to pay maintenance to his wife.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revisionist had failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision. The court noted that the impugned orders were passed after hearing the revisionist, and that the revisionist had not offered any explanation for the delay of over two years in filing the revision after the dismissal of his appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation application and the revision.
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 425 of
2022
Revisionist :- Kunal Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Chief Secretary
(Home) U.P And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar,Brij Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist, learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. This delay condonation application has been filed by the
applicant under section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of
delay in filing the enclosed revision, which was filed against
order dated order dated 11.07.2016, passed by the learned
A.C.J.M., Court No. 6, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 561 of
2014, as well as against the order dated 11.05.2018, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 143/ 2016 (Kunal Singh and others Vs
State of U.P. and Anr).
3. As per report of the Stamp Reporter, there is delay of 740
days in filing the proposed criminal revision.
4. Perusal of record shows that applicant is husband of the
opposite party No. 2. The wife of applicant has filed a case
under Domestic Violence Act against the applicant and some of
his family members and in that matter after hearing both the
parties, the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 6, Aligarh, in criminal
case No. 561 of 2014, granted interim relief vide order dated
11.07.2016 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs 4000/- per
month as interim maintenance and for expenses being incurred
by opposite party No. 2 in proceedings of the case.
5. It appears that the applicant challenged the said order dated
11.07.2016 in criminal appeal No. 143/2016, which was
decided by vide order dated 11.05.2018, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh and the appeal
was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that due to COVID
19 pandemic the applicant could not approach the this Court for
filing of revision and that the delay in filing the revision is not
deliberate or intentional. It is further submitted that the delay is
not long and as the case of applicant has merits, thus the delay
must be condoned so that the matter could be decided on merits.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that
the opposite party No. 2, who is wife of applicant, has filed the
said case in the year 2013 seeking maintenance and other reliefs
but the applicant deliberately delayed the proceedings and
ultimately order dated 11.07.2016 was passed by the learned
A.C.J.M., Court No. 6, Aligarh in criminal case No. 561 of
2014, awarding interim relief. The said order was challenged by
the applicant by filing criminal appeal No. 143/ 2016, which
was dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2018. Both the orders
have been passed after hearing the applicant. The COVID 19
pandemic surged in the year 2020 and again in 2021. There is
absolutely no explanation as to why the applicant did not
approach this Court for a period of two 2 years till March 2020
before pandemic. It was submitted that no case for condonation
of delay is made out and in fact it is an attempt of applicant to
evade his liability to pay the maintenance.
8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
9. In case of Maniben Devraj Shah V Municipal Corpn of
Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that law of limitation is founded on public policy. The
Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of
destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they
approach the Court for vindication of their rights without
unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of
limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the
expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time,
the Courts are empowered to condone
