IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 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 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 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 applica