Ram Murti v. Sheela and Others), under Sections

Revision No. 702 of 2022, arising out of Complaint No. 1394 of 2020 (Ram Murti Vs. Sheela and Others), under Sections - 406, 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Bajeerganj, District - Badaun, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by applicants for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been rejected.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.3 was married with son of opposite party no.2 and she was harassed by her husband and his family members. The opposite party no.2 has filed complaint against applicant no.3 and her family members, making false and baseless allegations and applicants were summoned vide impugned order dated 20.03.2021. When applicants came to know about summoning order, they have preferred a criminal revision against said summoning order and application under Section - 5 Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing of criminal revision. Said application under Section - 5 Limitation Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (D.A.A.), Budaun vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. It was submitted that the delay in filing filing of revision was duly explained but the application of applicants was rejected by adopting hyper technical approach. It was submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that applicants were summoned vide order dated 20.03.2021 on the basis of evidence. The criminal revision was filed with delay of more than one year and that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and the application of applicants filed under Section - 5 Limitation Act was rightly rejected.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. In case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corp. of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice. No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years the Apex Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. In this connection, a reference may be made to case of N. Balakrishna Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123.

8. It is established view that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. In case the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.

9. In the instant matter, it appears that applicants were summoned vide summoning order dated 20.03.2021. It was pointed out on behalf of the applicants that no notice or summon was served upon applicants and thus, they have no knowledge about the said summoning order and as soon as the applicants came to know about the said summoning order on 25.08.2022, some period was consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the summoning order and later the applicant, who was pursuing the matter, has fallen ill. It appears that application of applicants filed under Section - 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been rejected mainly on the ground that after obtaining certified copies, no explanation was offered for the delay of 10 days. In such matters, the court must not adopt hyper technical approach, rather a liberal approach should be adopted, so that substantial rights of the parties are not defeated merely on the basis of delay. Considering facts of the matter, a case for condonation of delay, which took place in filing criminal revision against summoning order, was made out.

10. In view of aforesaid, the application filed by applicants under Section - 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing criminal revision before the Session court concerned is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. The costs shall be payable to the opposite party no.2 before the concerned court within a period of four weeks from today. The delay in filing criminal revision on behalf of the applicants before the Session court concerned stands condoned. On payment of costs, the revision filed by the applicants before the court concerned shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In case, the costs are not paid within the aforesaid period, the impugned order shall be effective and operative.

11. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 23.1.2025/S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Revision No. 702 of 2022, arising out of Complaint No. 1394 of 2020 (Ram Murti Vs. Sheela and Others), under Sections - 406, 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Bajeerganj, District - Badaun, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by applicants for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been rejected.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.3 was married with son of opposite party no.2 and she was harassed by her husband and his family members. The opposite party no.2 has filed complaint against applicant no.3 and her family members, making false and baseless allegations and applicants were summoned vide impugned order dated 20.03.2021. When applicants came to know about summoning order, they have preferred a criminal revision against said summoning order and application under Section - 5 Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing of criminal revision. Said application under Section - 5 Limitation Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (D.A.A.), Budaun vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. It was submitted that the delay in filing filing of revision was duly explained but the application of applicants was rejected by adopting hyper technical approach. It was submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that applicants were summoned vide order dated 20.03.2021 on the basis of evidence. The criminal revision was filed with delay of more than one year and that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and the application of applicants filed under Section - 5 Limitation Act was rightly rejected.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. In case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corp. of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice. No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years the Apex Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. In this connection, a reference may be made to case of N. Balakrishna Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123.

8. It is established view that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. In case the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.

9. In the instant matter, it appears that applicants were summoned vide summoning order dated 20.03.2021. It was pointed out on behalf of the applicants that no notice or summon was served upon applicants and thus, they have no knowledge about the said summoning order and as soon as the applicants came to know about the said summoning order on 25.08.2022, some period was consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the summoning order and later the applicant, who was pursuing the matter, has fallen ill. It appears that application of applicants filed under Section - 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been rejected mainly on the ground that after obtaining certified copies, no explanation was offered for the delay of 10 days. In such matters, the court must not adopt hyper technical approach, rather a liberal approach should be adopted, so that substantial rights of the parties are not defeated merely on the basis of delay. Considering facts of the matter, a case for condonation of delay, which took place in filing criminal revision against summoning order, was made out.

10. In view of aforesaid, the application filed by applicants under Section - 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing criminal revision before the Session court concerned is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. The costs shall be payable to the opposite party no.2 before the concerned court within a period of four weeks from today. The delay in filing criminal revision on behalf of the applicants before the Session court concerned stands condoned. On payment of costs, the revision filed by the applicants before the court concerned shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In case, the costs are not paid within the aforesaid period, the impugned order shall be effective and operative.

11. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 23.1.2025/S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad