IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

122 CRM-53139-2025 in/&

Date of decision: 02.02.2026 Date of uploading: 03.02.2026 Karambir @ Karambir Singh ....Applicant/Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-53139-2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 19.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing the appeal preferred by the present applicant-petitioner. Vide the said order, the appeal filed by the respondents No.2 to 5 were partly allowed and respondents Nos.3 to 5 were acquitted from the charges whereas respondent No.2 was ordered to be released on probation in FIR No.352 dated 17.09.2014 under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal. The applicant-petitioner, by way of instant revision petition, impugns the abovesaid judgment.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant–petitioner, while seeking condonation of delay of 78 days, has submitted that the applicant– petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the judgment, which was received by the counsel appearing before the Appellate Court on 08.08.2025. It is further submitted that upon coming to know of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the applicant–petitioner took steps to collect the requisite documents, which process was completed by 12.09.2025. It is contended that the delay in filing the revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred inadvertently in the said process. 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.

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 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 applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on ‘day to-day basis’ for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake