( 2025:HHC:15763 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P(M) No.1872 of 2024 Reserved on: 23.05.2025 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 Dropti Devi .......applicant/petitioner versus Govind Ram ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the applicant: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge By medium of this application, the applicant/petitioner has sought the condonation of delay of 145 days that has crept up in filing of the main petition. 2. The explanation seeking condonation of delay has been given in paras 3 to 5 of the application, which read thus:- “3. That the impugned order was passed on 20.12.2023, copy of the same was applied on, 06.04.2024 and certified copy was delivered to the applicant on 01.05.2024. 4. That it is submitted that the matter had come up before the Ld. Court below on 13.10.2023, on the said date vice counsel appeared and the next date in the matter was conveyed to the original counsel on 09.01.2024. As such the vice counsel appeared before the Ld. Trial Court below 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 2 09.01.2024 but the matter was not reflected in the cause list. Thereafter the winter vacation in the Hon'ble High Court commenced and the counsel resume the court work on the opening of the courts on 26.02.2024 whereby junior counsel Ms Amita Thakur Advocate was asked about the next date fixed in the present matter. The vice counsel checked the status of the case on 05.04.2024 and came to know about the impugned order passed on 20.12.2023 as such immediately on 06.04.2024 the copy of the impugned order was applied which was delivered on 01.05.2024 and immediately thereafter the present petition was got drafted on 02.05.2024. Copy of the counsel's diary showing the entries of the dates is enclosed herewith as Annexure A-1. 5. That thereafter, though the petition was prepared land drafted on 2.5.2024, however same could not be filed due to the counsel visited back to her home town on account of the bereavement in her family due to which the counsel resumed her court work on regular basis in the first week of June,2024. As such the accompanying petition was filed on 6.6.2024. Thereafter, the registry of this Hon'ble Court raised the objection on 2.8.2024 to file the application for the condonation of delay.” 3. The respondent has contested the application by filing reply, wherein, it has been averred that the explanation given by the applicant does not inspire any confidence and the same has been cooked up in order to get the inordinate delay condoned. It is averred that the applicant has duly been represented before the learned Court below and the matter was attended by the counsel on 13.10.2023 and thereafter as per submissions made in the application, the date conveyed to the original counsel was 09.01.2024. 4. On 09.01.2024, the learned counsel appeared before the learned trial Court, but the matter was not ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 3 reflected in the cause list, then why learned counsel for the applicant did not choose to inquire into the matter to know about the date, is not forthcoming. Therefore, the same goes to prove that such explanation has been offered only to get the inordinate delay condoned. 5. The applicant/petitioner has filed rejoinder, wherein, it has been averred that the vice counsel appeared before the Court below on 09.01.2024, but it is wrong to suggest that the original or the vice counsel or the applicant did not make an endevaour to know about the date on which the matter was listed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. At the outset, Ms. Ambika Kotwal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before the Court that on 09.01.2024, she had duly informed her client i.e the applicant herein about the case having been dismissed in default for want of prosecution by the Court below on 20.12.2023. Once that be so, then, the question is that what steps had been taken by the applicant to ensure that the revision petition is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The bonafides must relate to the period of limitation and not thereafter. ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 4 8. We are fully conscious of the fact that in matters of the instant kind, the Courts normally are required to adopt liberal approach specially while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging a petition late and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It is clearly settled that the approach in such matter should not be pedantic, but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense, pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical consideration. 9. However, at the same time, the Court is also required to see whether there are lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay. It has also to take into consideration the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence while approaching the Court. It has further to be ensured that the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play because there is increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 5 propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner, which requires to be curbed, of course, within the legal parameters. This legal position is succinctly expounded in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013 (12) SCC 649, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay the principles applicable thereto were summarised as follows:- (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 6 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: - (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 7 (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the applicant/petitioner despite having come to know about the order dated 20.12.2023, whereby the petition filed by her has been dismissed for want of prosecution, did not initiate any appropriate steps to file the petition within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, she has been grossly negligent and there has been deliberate inaction on her part to file the petition within time. There is lack of bonafides on the part of the applicant and it is more than settled that unless there is reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay and there is bonafide effort on the part of the applicant, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the applicant was diligently pursuing the matter or knew about the outcome of the petition filed by her. 11. That apart, the applicant/petitioner otherwise would not have waited for about a period of four months to ( 2025:HHC:15763 ) 8 inquire about the case instituted by her. It is thus clear that the applicant/petitioner has only tried to set up a cock and bull story for condonation of delay. 12. The law of limitation may operate harshly, but it has to be applied with all its rigors and the Courts cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the instant application. The same is accordingly dismissed so also the main petition. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge May 26, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge