Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CR REV / 10/2026
LAKSMAN SINGH VS. RAMESH KUMAR
PS KRISHNA NAGAR
23.04.2026
Present: Sh. Gulshan Garg, Sh. Sahil Sharma and Ms. Karishma
Mehra, Ld. Counsel for revisionist.
Sh. Ashish Uppal and Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Ld. Counsel
for respondent.
Ld. Counsel for revisionist has filed a judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as S. Nagesh vs Shobha S.
Aradhya 2026 INSC 27 and relies on the para no.14 of the said
judegment wherein it has been held:
14. It is manifest from the clear and
unambiguous language of the above proviso
that the power conferred upon the Court to
take cognisance of a belated complaint is
subject to the complainant first satisfying the
Court that he had sufficient cause for not
making the complaint within time. The
satisfaction in that regard, resulting in
condonation of the delay, must therefore
precede the act of taking cognizance.
Ordinarily, a proceeding instituted with
limitation-linked delay before a Court of law
does not actually figure as a regular matter on
its file until that delay is condoned.For
example, Order XLI Rules 3A and 5(3) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, make this
position amply clear in the context of belated
presentation of civil appeals. Therefore, the
approach of the High Court in treating this
crucial aspect as a mere interchangeable
exercise, i.e., either to first condone the delay
or to first take cognisance, is not in keeping
with the mandate of the aforestated proviso.
We may note that the respondent was herself
responsible for this imbroglio as she had made
-- 1 of 3 --
a categorical statement in her complaint that it
was filed within time, when it was not.
Therefore, he argues that the Ld. Trial Court has, vide
order dated 10.07.2025, simply taken cognizance of the offence
and has not decided the issue of limitation which is sine qua-non
before hearing the complainant on merits. Since the cognizance
cannot be taken without deciding the issue of limitation,
cognizance is bad in law and therefore, every order post the order
dated 10.07.2025 is non-est since the cognizance itself is bad.
Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that the
submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist, are not in line within
his own revision wherein he has challenged only the order dated
09.10.2025 vide which it was held that no application U/s 145(2)
NI Act is filed despite direction. “The only defence of the
accused is that he has made payment to the complainant
already.” Therefore, Ld. Counsel for respondent argues that only
the said order has been challenged and if the revisionist intended
to challenge the order dated 10.07.2025, he ought to have clearly
mentioned in the revision petition and prayer clause but same has
not been deliberately challenged only because of the fact that if
the revisionist petition challenging the order dated 10.07.2025
would have been filed, that revision petition would have been
barred by limitation. He further submits that if the Ld. Counsel
for revisionist intends to challenge the order dated 10.07.2025
then the revision petition ought to have been accompanied by an
application U/s 5 of Limitation Act which is admittedly not filed
along with the present revision petition. Therefore, this Court
cannot check the legality of the order dated 10.07.2025 as the
same has not been challenged.
-- 2 of 3 --
Ld. Counsels for revisionist as well as respondent
intend to file written submissions not exceeding three pages each
in support of their arguments. The same be filed within two
weeks from today.
Put up on 23.05.2026 for clarification.
(ASHISH RASTOGI)
ASJ-05/East District
Karkardooma Courts
Delhi /23.04.2026
-- 3 of 3 --