Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
Crl. Revision No.218/2024
CNR No.DLNE01-003795-2024
In the matter of:
Yashpal Midha
S/o Shri Satish Kumar
R/o House No.282,
Ground Floor,
Gali No.6, Ram Nagar,
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051. .........Revisionist
Versus
Satish Kumar
S/o Shri Bhadur Chand
R/o House No.11/223,
Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031. …........Respondent
Date of registration of revision: 18.12.2024
Date when revision was received by this Court: 23.12.2024
Date of conclusion of arguments: 04.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 23.04.2025
Appearance:
For Revisionist : Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
for the revisionist.
For Respondent : Sh. Ankit Mehta, Advocate for
respondent.
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
revisionist challenging the order dated 27.11.2024, passed by
learned JMFC, Negotiable Instruments Act, Digital Court, North-
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the
CR no.218/24 Yashpal Midha Vs. Satish Kumar Page 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
respondent was allowed.
2. Notice of the revision petition was sent to the respondent.
Trial Court record was summoned.
3. No reply to revision petition was filed by the respondent.
4. Written submissions was filed on behalf of the revisionist.
Vide order dated 04.04.2025, it was submitted that the revision
petition may be decided on the basis of written submissions filed
on behalf of the revisionist.
5. I have heard Sh. Ankit Mehta, ld. counsel for the
respondent and gone through the written submissions filed on
behalf of the revisionist. I have carefully gone through the
record.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in
short ‘N. I. Act’) read with Section 142 of N. I. Act against the
revisionist on the ground of alleged non-payment of loan amount
of rupees forty four lacs. Along with the aforesaid complaint, the
respondent had also filed an application under Section 142 (b) of
the N. I. Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking
condonation of delay of thirty nine days in filing of the
complaint. The learned Trial Court allowed the aforesaid
application of the respondent vide impugned order dated
27.11.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the
revisionist filed the present revision petition.
7. It is stated in the written submissions filed on behalf of the
revisionist that reasons raised before the ld. Trial Court for
condonation of delay were insufficient; Section 142(b) N. I. Act
permits condonation of delay in filing of complaint provided
cognizance of complaint is taken by the Court after the
prescribed period. It is stated that the respondent has failed to
CR no.218/24 Yashpal Midha Vs. Satish Kumar Page 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
place on record any supporting medical document with respect to
his serious illness. It is further stated that the respondent should
not be allowed to take undue advantage of his negligence. It is
stated that the ld. Trial Court has erred in allowing condonation
of delay application and, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is argued that
the ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order after
considering old age ailments of the respondent; two cheques
bearing no.136272 and no.136273 were with the previous
counsel of the respondent, who could not collect the same on
time from him due to his illness; new counsel engaged by the
respondent remained busy for fifteen days on account of his
marriage. It is stated that after considering the aforesaid reasons,
the ld. Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the
application for condonation of delay.
9. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where decision
under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with
provisions of law, findings recorded is not based on evidence,
material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or perversely. Revisional jurisdiction under Section
397 Cr.P.C has limited scope where the judgments/orders under
challenge are hugely inaccurate, there is no adherence to the
provisions of law, recorded finding is not supported by evidence,
or relevant evidence is omitted. “Legality, validity or accuracy of
court’s order is basic cornerstone of the exercising authority
under Section 397 Cr.P.C”.
10. I have gone through the impugned order dated 27.11.2024.
Ld. Trial Judge has clearly observed that Section 5 of the
CR no.218/24 Yashpal Midha Vs. Satish Kumar Page 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
Limitation Act read with Proviso of Section 142 of N. I. Act
confers power upon the Court to condone the delay in filing of
the complaint on sufficient grounds. It is also observed by the
learned Trial Court that liberal approach has to be taken in
allowing a case to be decided on merits. Ld. Trial Court
condoned the delay of thirty nine days mainly on the grounds that
complaint could not be filed within stipulated time as previous
counsel was having the original cheques with him; complainant
being an old person was suffering from acute illness during the
said period; and due to the said reasons, complaint could not be
filed within limitation period.
11. Ld. counsel for respondent has referred a cases bearing RP
No.497 of 2015 and RP No.498 of 2015 both titled ‘Sathy M. P
and Ors. Vs. Sarasa and Ors.’ both decided on 06.11.2023. In this
case, there was question of condonation of delay of 288 days in
filing a review petition. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court
that “reason stated for delay is the difficulties caused to the
Power of Attorney holder and not to the petitioners/review
petitioners and the delay has not properly been explained”. The
facts and the reasons of the said case were entirely different from
the case in hand.
12. Ld. counsel for the respondent has also relied a case titled ‘
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. Vs. The Special
Deputy Collector (LA), decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 08.04.2024. In the said case, it was held that as under:
“(iv) In order to advance substantial justice,
though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach
or cause of substantial justice may be kept in
mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the
substantial law of limitation contained in Section
CR no.218/24 Yashpal Midha Vs. Satish Kumar Page 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
3 of the Limitation Act.”
As far as the legal principle held in this case is concerned,
there cannot be any dispute.
13. In the present case, ld. Trial Court has given reasons for
his satisfaction about the condonation of delay of 39 days. From
the record, it cannot be disputed that respondent is an old aged
person and, therefore, his plea of health reasons appears to be
probable. The other reasons mentioned in the impugned order
also appear to be convincing.
14. Ld. Trial Court has passed a detailed speaking order in
respect of condonation of delay and recorded its satisfaction. The
order of ld. Trial Court cannot be reversed in revisional
jurisdiction merely because two opinions may be possible. The
order passed by the ld. Trial Court does not suffer from any
illegality or perversity. The impugned order is not going to cause
any miscarriage of justice. In my opinion, ld. Trial Court has
exercised its discretion in judicious manner by passing a
speaking order with cogent reasons.
15. In my opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court. The revision
petition is devoid of any merits and, therefore, the same is
dismissed.
16. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent
back.
17. File be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open (SANJEEV JAIN)
Court today i.e on Principal District & Sessions Judge,
23rd April, 2025 North East District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi.
CR no.218/24 Yashpal Midha Vs. Satish Kumar Page 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --