IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DFSC-cum-District Manager ....Applicant/Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Date of uploading: 22.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-22208-2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 30.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has been upheld.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 168 days, has argued that that a certified copy of the impugned orders was received from the District Manager, CONFED District Office, Yamunanagar through e-mail on 16.09.2024, as no regular staff of CONFED was working in the District Office and the additional charge of District Manager, CONFED had been entrusted to the District Food & Supplies Controller, Haryana. It is further submitted that the legal opinion of the concerned advocate dated 24.09.2024, recommending the filing of appeal CRA/250/2018, was received through the District Office, Yamunanagar on 24.09.2024. Thereafter, the CONFED District Office, Yamunanagar was advised to forward the brief facts and complete record of the case, as the matter pertained to that office; however, the relevant file was received only in the month of December, 2024. Learned counsel further submits that upon receipt of the file, the office examined the matter and found that the case pertained to the year 2011 and that all the staff/employees who were posted at the time of the alleged occurrence had already retired from service. It is further submitted that thereafter the legal opinion of the Assistant District Attorney, Food Department—who had been deputed to look after the legal work of CONFED—was obtained on 19.02.2025, wherein she opined that the case was fit for filing of a revision petition. 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 168 days in filing the revision petition has been sought.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and have perused the paper-book.

4. 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 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