IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1152-2024 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 ROHTASH SINGH .......APPLICANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate for the review applicant-appellant.

*****

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

CM-3197-LPA-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 303 days in filing of the review application being RA-LP-23-2025.

The review applicant-appellant has sought review/modification/correction of an order dated May 08, 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Lapita Banerji J.) was a member.

It has been pleaded in the instant application that the order dated May 08, 2024 was received on May 22, 2024 and the review applicant- appellant was not feeling well at that time. Furthermore, he was highly disappointed and depressed by the manner in which he had been compelled to approach this Court time and again, for no fault of his own. Therefore, the review petition could not be filed within the period of limitation. We have heard the learned counsel for the review applicant-

appellant and perused the relevant pleadings on record.

Apart from a cursory reference to the ill health of the review applicant and him suffering from disappointment/depression, no attempt has been made to provide sufficient cause justifying the delay of 303 days in filing of the review application. No corroborative evidence in the form of any medical record has also been brought on record, which would show that the delay on the part of the review applicant-appellant was neither intentional nor willful.

The Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v.

Gujaral Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 and Office of the Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd and another (2012) 3 SCC

563 has clearly held that delay is not liable to be condoned at the asking.

In Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 11 SCC 35, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“xxx

7. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, relied upon the writings of Mr Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures, 1932 wherein it has been said that:

A law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.

Xxx

11. It is also a well-settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.

12. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya this court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

Xxx”

In Esha Bhattacharjee’s case (supra), certain principles for condoning the delay have been carved out by the Apex Court. The relevant extract is reproduced herein after:-

“21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

21.1 (i)There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for c