Varinder Singh Rangra (since deceased) through his LRs vs. Bhupinder Singh @ Bobby. Cr.MP(M) No. 1599 of 2024 Reserved on 03.08.2026 07.08.2026 Present: Mr Suraj Kumar, Advocate vice Mr Balraj Singh, Advocate for the appellant/applicant. Mr Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. The appellant/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of 162 days' delay in filing the appeal. 2. It has been asserted that the applicant could not file the appeal within the limitation because of his illness. The applicant has a good and genuine cause for not filing the appeal within time. The delay was due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Hence, the application. 3. The application is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the applicant was advised complete bed rest from 19.07.2023 till 01.04.2024 and it is difficult to understand how a person could have been advised bed rest for 258 days. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 had executed a power of attorney in the applicant’s 2 favour on 10.01.2024, which shows the falsity of the application. There is no reason for condoning the delay. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4 This Court framed the following issues on 29.05.2025. 1. Whether there is sufficient reason for condonation of delay? OPA 2. Relief. 5 The applicant examined himself (PW1). No evidence was laid by the respondent. 6 I have heard Mr Suraj Kumar, learned vice counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr Vishwas Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent. 7 Mr Suraj Kumar, learned vice counsel representing the applicant/appellant submitted that the applicant was ill and he could not file the appeal within limitation because of his illness. The applicant had a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 8. Mr Vishwas Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the applicant has not examined the doctor who had issued the certificate. It is highly unlikely that a certificate would have been issued for 258 3 days. The applicant had executed a special Power of Attorney during the period of ailment, and he has not provided any explanation for condoning the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur had acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 19.07.2023. The applicant filed a medical certificate (Ext.AW1/B) stating that the applicant was advised bed rest with effect from 19.07.2023 till 01.04.2024. The applicant stated on oath that he was ill and a rod was inserted in his left leg after he fell from a scooty. His leg was again fractured due to which he was bedridden. Therefore, he could not file the appeal within time. He admitted that a Power of Attorney (Ext.AW1/C) was executed in his favour by the other appellant/applicant, etc. 11. The respondent has not stepped into the witness box to state that the plea taken by the applicant is incorrect. The plea taken by the applicant is duly supported by the medical certificate. The Power of Attorney (Ext.AW1/C) does not bear the applicant’s signatures and 4 only the signatures of Seema Devi and Aakashdeep. Therefore, the execution of the Power of Attorney does not falsify the plea of illness taken by the applicant. 12. Illness is a circumstance beyond the control of a person. Therefore, the applicant had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time. Hence, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of Cr.MP (Filing) No. 2598 of 2024 13. The delay in filing the present application has been ordered to be condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1599 of 2024. The application be registered. 14. A copy of the application be supplied to the respondent. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks and the matter will be listed thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th August, 2026 (Nikita)