Yadav Nandan vs. Ishani Kumari @ Asha Devi @ Ashu CMP(M) No.1480 of 2025 07.04.2026 Present: Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent. By way of present application, the applicant/petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing the Civil Revision. 2. It is not in dispute that before instituting the Civil Revision against the impugned order dated 22.06.2023, passed by Ld. Principal Judge Family Court Mandi, District Mandi, HP, the petitioner had filed CMPMO No.596 of 2023, titled, Yadav Nandan vs. Ishani Kumari @ Nisha, which was permitted to be withdrawn, as per order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P- 8), with liberty to file afresh. After passing the aforesaid order on 28.03.2025, the petitioner had instituted the present Civil Revision on 14.07.2025. 3. It has been averred in the application that the applicant/petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the said order on 26.04.2024 and the copy of the same was received on 07.05.2024. In the application, it has been stated that the impugned order was challenged thereafter, but the petition registered as CMPMO No. 596 of 2023, was preferred much earlier to the said date.. 4. The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 22.06.2023, whereby the application filed by him under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the DNA test of one Sh. Anil Kumar, son of Sh. Jiva Nand, came to be rejected. 5. The respondents have filed reply to the application and submitted that the petitioner has remained slept over the matter for last 02 years and 25 days and now he cannot be allowed to reopen the case. Further, no sufficient cause has been made out by him for condonation of delay and such long delay cannot be condoned as a matter or right. The respondent has however admitted that the petitioner had earlier chosen to file the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and now he cannot be allowed to reopen the case in another petition. Further there is sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner and no sufficient cause has been made out by him to condone the delay. 6. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply and has rebutted the contentions and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.17665 of 2024, titled, Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram, wherein it was held that the time undertaken by the party in pursuing the remedy under Writ Jurisdiction has to be excluded. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also pursued the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed the petition before this Court, which came to be withdrawn on 28.03.2025, with liberty to file afresh. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant Revision Petition and since the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the litigation before this Court, the delay cannot come in his way to pray for quashing the impugned order. It is not the case of the respondent that she was not represented in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, which came to be withdrawn on 28.03.2025. In case the respondent had any grievance, she could have objected at that time when the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for to institute or file afresh. 9. It is settled law that the party should be granted the substantive justice and should not reject the claim on technical grounds. The petitioner had earlier engaged a counsel, who inspite of preferring the revision petition, had preferred the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and once this Court had granted the permission to institute the petition afresh, the period when the petitioner was litigating in the Court has to be excluded as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “36. More recently, in Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.6 (2-Judge Bench), this Court followed the dictum in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises (Supra) and M.P. Steel (Supra) to exclude the time period undertaken by the Plaintiff therein in pursuing remedy under Writ Jurisdiction, in the absence of challenge to the bona fides of the Plaintiff, in view of Section 14.” 10. Consequently, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CR No. ________of 2026 Revision be registered. List for consideration on 28.04.2026. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 07th April, 2026 Judge (Anurag)