IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Channo alias Charan Kaur ….Petitioner versus Darshana Rani and another ….Respondents Date of decision: February 17, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 17, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-2994-2018 Application herein has been filed on behalf of the applicant-

petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 112 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 08.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby, the respondents have been discharged.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 112 days, has argued that the complaint was dismissed on 08.06.2017 and certified copy was applied on 05.07.2017, which was prepared on 20.07.2017 and received on

29.07.2017. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was under impression that limitation period of 90 days starts from the date of receiving certified copy of the order. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner had misplaced the documents in the house since the same was under construction and found the said documents only on 10.12.2017 – thereafter, he contacted his counsel and immediately, filed the revision petition. Learned counsel has submitted that an application for condonation of delay ought to be considered liberally, particularly, where the applicant- petitioner has good case on merits. On these submissions, condonation of delay of 112 days in filing the revision petition has been sought. 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 has further argued that 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 parties 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 und