Full Order Text
Order 8 · 03 Dec 2025 · CNR DLET010057572024
Order Details: COPY OF ORDER Pdf Text: Cr Rev No. 221/2024 Naveen Kumar Luthra & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. PS Geeta Colony 03.12.2025 Present:- Ms. Kulwant Kaur, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists. Sh. S.K. Tripathi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R1. Sh. Durgesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision is pending for disposal. Counsel for the revisionists submits that in the instant case, the impugned order was passed on 26.04.2024, however, the revisionists came to know about the said order on 15.06.2024 when the revisionist no.1 was served notice to join the investigation. She further submits that the revisionist no.1 is cancer patient and due to his treatment, revision could not be preferred within the prescribed time period. Per contra, counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the revisionist no.1 has not placed on record any medical documents qua his medical condition and that the revisionist no.2 and 3 could have preferred the revision within the prescribed time period. Heard. Record perused. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy Civil Appl. No.8183-8184/2013, decided on 13.11.2013, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court Contd….1/2 -- 1 of 2 -- -2- that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, as the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. It was also held that the terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective. It was further held that substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue emphasis. Therefore, considering the law laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) and in order to strike a balance between the rights of the parties, the instant application is allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the respondent no.2 by the revisionists. Counsel for the revisionists submits that the aforesaid cost will be paid on or before the next date of hearing. Be paid accordingly. Put up for payment of aforesaid cost/arguments on revision on 11.02.2026. (Subhash Kumar Mishra) Additional Sessions Judge-03, East, KKD Courts, Delhi 03.12.2025 -- 2 of 2 --