IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2221-2016 Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Date of uploading: 14.01.2026 Jaspal Singh and another ....Applicant/Petitioners V/s Shingara Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. C.S. Bagri, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners (Through V.C.).

Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-19101-2016

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 265 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 21.05.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab, acquitting the respondents from the charges while upholding the judgment/order dated 19.03.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Samrala. The applicant-petitioners, by way of instant revision petition, impugns the abovesaid judgments.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 265 days, has argued that the applicant–petitioners had engaged the counsel in the last week of August, 2015. However, due to an inadvertent and bona fide error, the brief was misplaced in the house of the counsel who had shifted to his newly constructed house, which resulted in the delay in filing the present revision petition. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The applicant–petitioners have now been able to reconstruct the trial court record, and consequently, the present revision petition has been filed without any further delay. 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 for the applicant-petitioners 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. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has argued that there is inordinate delay in filing the revision petition and the applicant/petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the same and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the application as also for revision.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties 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