Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Cr Rev No. 240/2023
CNR No. DLSH01-005602-2023
Preeti Vs. Gopal Singh & Ors.
19.02.2025
Present:- Revisionist in person.
Sh. Sobit, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R1.
R2 Gopal Singh in person.
Revisionist has filed amended memo of parties.
ORDER
1. An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the revision has been filed on
behalf of revisionist. It is submitted that revisionist has filed the
revision before this court against the impugned order dt.
15.11.2022 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-03, SHD, KKD
Courts, Delhi and certified copy of said order was received on
14.02.2023 and his counsel did not apply/advise her to obtain
certified copy of order despite repeated requests. Thereafter,
immediately after receiving the certified copy, the complainant
requested his counsel to file revision against the order on charge.
Considering the limitation period of 90 days for filing revision
from the date of receiving certified copy, the revision petition
ought to have been filed on 13.05.2023. Earlier, advocate kept on
assuring the complainant that he would file the appeal/revision
after studying the order, but he kept on putting off the matter on
one pretext or the other. Advocate of complainant lost precious
Page No. 1
-- 1 of 5 --
time to file the same till 10.08.2023. Then, complainant
approached DLSA on 10.08.2023 to provide Legal Aid to her and
LAC was appointed by DLSA on 24.08.2023 to take up her
matter to file revision petition. The relevant documents were
submitted to LAC on 02.09.2023 to enable him to file petition.
LAC prepared the petition and filed the same on 02.09.2023.
There has been a delay of 115 days in filing the revision petition
due to reason mentioned above. During course of arguments, Ld.
Counsel for revisionist submitted that there was delay of more
than 200 days as it was not calculated properly by LAC and
revisionist has prima-facie good case in revision and delay was
not deliberate, but due to mistake of previous counsel and LAC.
2. Revisionist has relied upon some judgments titled as
State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Satyanarayan in Civil
Appeal No. 341/2025 dt. 06.01.2025 of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and Surendra G Shankar and another Vs. Esoque Finemark Pvt.
Ltd. and others in Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025 dt. 22.01.2025,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
3. In his reply filed by the respondent, he submitted
that the present revision petition is time barred, therefore, the
same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Essentially the
complainant is a chronic litigant and it cannot be imagined that
she was not aware about the filing of the present petition within
stipulated time or the inability to engage new counsel. She used
to file various litigations and complaint against the respondents
before the various courts and forum, therefore, she was well
aware how to take legal remedy against the impugned order.
Thus, the ground taken by the revisionist is not sustainable in the
Page No. 2
-- 2 of 5 --
eyes of law nor the grounds supported with any piece of
evidence, which demonstrate the correctness of version stated in
the said application.
4. Respondent has denied all the averments made in
the said application and submitted that revisionist has not
disclosed the name of advocate, who had assured to file the
revision and even, she has not lodged any complaint against the
said advocate.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon
judgment titled as
H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah since
deceased by LRS in Civil Appeal NO. 317/2025 dt. 08.01.2025
of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. The revisionist has assailed the order of Ld. Trial
Court dt. 15.11.2022 vide which charge was ordered to be framed
against the respondents u/s 498-A/34 IPC and they were
discharged u/s 406/506/34 IPC and u/s 4 of the DP Act. The
limitation for filing the revision is 90 days from the date of
impugned order as prescribed under Article 131 of the Limitation
Act. Thus, period of limitation expired on 14.02.2023.
8. The certified copy was received on 14.02.2023 and
the revision petition was filed on 06.09.2023. It is not mentioned
in the petition as to when the certified copy of the said order was
applied or prepared, thus no exemption of said period can be
calculated. So, the present revision was filed after the delay of
about 204 days, however, wrong calculation was made in the
application as 115 days and this fact is admitted by Ld. Counsel
for revisionist during the course of arguments.
Page No. 3
-- 3 of 5 --
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy (Supra)
wherein there was delay of 6 years in filing the application to
recall the case before the Trial Court and delay was condoned by
concerned Hon’ble High Court, whose order was set aside by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that substantial law of
limitation cannot be frustrated and court should not start with
merits of main matter while considering the plea for condonation
of delay and ascertained the explanation offered by the party
seeking condonation and only sufficient cause assigned and the
opposite party is equally balanced that court may bring into aid
the merits of matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
10. In the judgment of Surendra G Shankar (Supra)
relied by revisionist, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in
filing appeals should be condoned under normal circumstances
without commenting on merits of the case, Hon’ble Supreme
Court set aside the order of concerned Hon’ble High Court,
which refused to condone the delay.
In the judgment of Satyanarayan (Supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court set aside the delay of 2000 days in aggregate in
filing the application for restoration of first appeal and filing of
SLP.
11. The revisionist is a lady, who is stated to be a Guest
Teacher working under Govt. NCT of Delhi and it is natural that
she was busy in her work and she is not a legal expert or aware of
all the legal proceedings and when she got the certified copy of
the impugned order, she approached the counsel, who had
adopted lackadaisical approach and did not file the revision
Page No. 4
-- 4 of 5 --
promptly nor guided the revisionist. Then, she had to approach
the Legal Aid and then counsel was provided, which took time
and he after understanding the case, filed the present revision
with delay along with said application. The delay is not
inordinate and the reason assigned appears to be cogent. The
court is of the opinion that the delay of 204 days needs to be
condoned and the issues raised in the present revision are to be
decided on merits and the respondent has also suffered due to
delay, which can be countered by imposing cost on the
revisionist.
12. Thus, in view of the discussion above and the
judgments quoted, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for
condoning the delay in filing the present revision is allowed,
subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to the
respondent.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
The said cost be paid to respondent on or before the
next date of hearing.
Put up for arguments on 27.02.2025.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
19.02.2025
Page No. 5
-- 5 of 5 --