IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-50626-2024 in/and CRR(F)-1446-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Ashok .. Applicant/Petitioner Vs.

Santosh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for applicant-petitioner.

...

S UMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)

CRM-50626-2024

1. Instant application has been filed for restoration of CRR(F)-

1446-2024 by recalling the order dated 14.11.2024.

2. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to recall the order dated 14.11.2024 & restore the main case i.e. CRR(F)-1446-2024 to its original status and number.

3. Ordered accordingly.

4. List the main case today itself i.e. 08.01.2025.

CRM-45169-2024

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-husband seeking condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 14.09.2023 passed by learned Addl.

Principal Judge (Family Court), Hisar whereby the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance was allowed and the petitioner-husband (herein) was directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent-wife as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the said petition before the Family Court along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,500/-.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 321 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as the applicant-petitioner had no knowledge about filing of revision petition before this Court and after some time, he engaged the counsel before this Court and filed the accompanied 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.

3. I have heard 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:

A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1969 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 such a pedantic approach.

V. In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while grantin