M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. vs. Padam Kumar Jain & another CMP(M) No.72 of 2024 11.09.2025 Present: Mr. Chandernarayan Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CMP(M) No.72 of 2024 The application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 11.08.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Execution Petition No.115 of 2022. 2. It has been averred in the application that the certified copy of the order was received by the applicant on 18.10.2023 from their counsel. Thereafter, the consultations were held with the counsel at Una and Nagpur in Maharashtra whereupon the applicant had received an advise on 10.11.2023 to assail the order before this Court. Further, the process was initiated by law section of the applicant and finally the revision petition was filed on 27.12.2023. 3. The applicant has also filed the supplementary affidavit providing the details and has thereby sought to explain the entire period of delay and reasons therefor. It has been submitted that after the passing of impugned order on 11.08.2023, the application for certified copy of the order was submitted by the counsel at Una on 26.08.2023. The certified copy of the order was received by the counsel at Una on 05.09.2023. However, since the father of the counsel at Una was not keeping well and eventually died on 12.09.2023, the said counsel could not convey the certified copy of order to the applicant till 10.10.2023. The certified copy was received in the office of applicant at Nagpur in Maharashtra on 18.10.2023 and thereafter, the process of legal consultation with counsel at Una and Nagpur was initiated. The administrative decision was taken on the basis of legal advise received and revision was filed. 4. The non-applicant is contesting the prayer made in the application. The applicant has been accused of being negligent and of not being diligent. It has also been submitted that the averments made by the applicant are not supported by any documentary evidence. Citing the reason of prejudice that is going to be caused to the non-applicant, prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. Another objection raised by the non- applicant is that the copy of impugned order was available on the official website of the Court and the applicant could have taken cognizance of such fact. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has also pointed out that the factum of ailment of death of father of counsel at Una was not mentioned in the initial application and it was only by way of supplementary affidavit that the fact was disclosed, which reflects the lack of bonafide on behalf of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition(c) No.31248 of 2018, titled Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRS & others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) to assert that the prayer for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of routine. It is only on satisfaction of the Court as to sufficient cause and bonafide of the applicant that the delay can be condoned. He further submits that since, the vested rights have accrued in favour of the non-applicant, the same cannot be taken away lightly. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it can be noticed that as far as the factum of ailment and death of father of counsel of the applicant at Una is concerned, the same has not been denied. Another noticeable fact is that the applicant operates from Nagpur in Maharashtra. It has not been shown that the applicant has any local office in Himachal Pradesh or at Una. It being so, it was natural for the applicant to have relied upon its local counsel at Una for submission of application for obtaining certified copy of the order and its further transmission to the applicant. 8. Since, the local counsel at Una was faced with family problem, the delay on his part in not making the application for certified copy of the order promptly and the further delay in transmitting it to the applicant cannot be said to be for any malafide reasons. 9. The applicant had received the certified copy in its office at Nagpur on 18.10.2023 and as noticed above due to the fact that the applicant is based at Nagpur and its local counsel was at Una, the time taken in legal consultations also cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10.There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law canvassed by learned counsel for the non-applicant, however, given the fact of instant case, I do not find any lack of bonafie on behalf of the applicant in not presenting the revision petition within time. Another factor that cannot be ignored is the period of delay which is not inordinate. 11. In result, the application is allowed. Delay in filing he revision petition is condoned. Application is accordingly disposed of. Civil Revision No.________ of 2025 Be registered. Notice. Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Separate notice be issued to respondent No.1, returnable for 4th November, 2025, on taking steps within one week. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge September 11, 2025 (vt)