Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 11 CC NI Act No. 5739/2024
PS SADAR BAZAR
M/s Garg And Co Vs. Haseeb Ali
17.10.2025
Present: Sh. Haji Mohd. Yameen, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Ccomplainant is absent.
None for proposed accused/ respondent in person.
Matter is at the stage of reply and arguments on application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the present complaint.
Notice of abovesaid application issued upon proposed accused/
respondent has been received back electronically unserved. Notice issued to
proposed accused/ respondent by way of speed post has been received back
with an endorsement of refusal to accept service. Accordingly, notice has been
deemed served upon proposed accused/ respondent. Despite service,
proposed accused/ respondent has neither filed reply to the abovesaid
application nor has presented arguments. Accordingly, right to file reply and
present arguments on aforesaid application, stands closed qua proposed
accused/ respondent.
Arguments on abovesaid application have been heard on behalf of
the complainant.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application for condonation of
delay filed on behalf of the complainant.
2. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that there is delay of
about 60 days in filing the present complaint.
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
The same was due to the fact that the complainant is a senior citizen and
chronic patient of various illnesses. It is prayed that the delay in filing the
present complaint be condoned as it was neither intentional nor deliberate and
irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the complainant if the same is not
condoned.
3. The proposed accused/respondent had neither filed any reply to
the said application nor has presented any arguments.
4. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the complainant.
Perusal of the record reveals that there has been delay of about 52 days in filing
the present complaint. As per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
‘Brushman India Ltd. & Anr. v. State & Anr.’ (2018 SCC Online Del 12499), it
has been held that a liberal and pragmatic approach has to be adopted while
considering the application seeking condonation of delay. The legislature has
provided the remedy of seeking condonation of delay to enable the genuine
litigant to pursue his case by overcoming the technical defects of limitation.
Refusing to condone the delay can result in meritorious case being dismissed
on technical grounds and cause of justice may get defeated. Further, if the
‘sufficient cause’, as shown, does not show any malafide and the delay is not
deliberate or the result of negligence of the party, the court may condone the
same.
5. In this case, the complainant has given a reasonable explanation
showing sufficient cause for delay in filing the complaint. Nothing on record
shows that there was negligence on the part of the complainant or that the delay
lacks bonafide. Further, the discretion has to be exercised by this court in
positive manner to further the cause of justice.
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to the cost of Rs.2,000/-
to be deposited in DLSA (Central). Cost be deposited and receipt be filed on
NDOH.
Complainant is directed to file a duly stamped and signed return
memo on record.
Put up for purpose fixed on 19.01.2026.
(ARUSHI PARWAL)
JMFC (NI Act) – 05/ Central District
THC/Delhi/17.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --