Shakil Akhtar versus Bardu Ram Cr. M.P. (M) No.2935 of 2024 Reserved on 12.08.2025 19.08.2025 Present: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for the applicant/ petitioner. Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for the respondent. The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 02 years 04 months and 08 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant/petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal. He came to know about the dismissal when he asked his advocate in Sundernagar about the appeal. The learned counsel advised the applicant to file the appeal within 90 days from the date of acquiring such knowledge. However, he was informed by his counsel at Shimla that the period of 90 days is to be calculated from the date of the decision. The applicant could not file the appeal within time due to the aforesaid reason. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 2. No reply was filed. 3. I have heard Mr. Ankit Dhiman, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mr. Suneet Verma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent. 4. Mr. Ankit Dhiman, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the applicant/petitioner could not file the appeal within a period of limitation as he was not informed by his counsel about the fate of his appeal. He came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when he made inquiries from the learned counsel. The delay occurred due to aforesaid reasons, which are beyond the control of the applicant. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 5. Mr. Suneet Verma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the applicant was negligent in not making inquiries regarding the fate of the appeal preferred by him. He has not mentioned any steps taken by him against the learned counsel to justify his plea that the learned counsel was negligent. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the appeal was filed on 20.11.2021 and was decided on 26.07.2022. The present revision was filed before this Court on 03.12.2024 after the expiry of two years, four months and eight days as per the report of the Registry. The only reason for the delay is that the applicant was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal. This is not a satisfactory reason. He claimed that his counsel did not inform him about the dismissal of the appeal. However, he has not mentioned the name of the counsel or the steps taken by him against the learned counsel for not informing him about the dismissal of the appeal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770: 1969 SCC OnLine SC 306 that the negligence of the counsel may not be a reason for condonation of delay in all cases. It was observed at page 772: “6. The law is settled that a mistake of counsel may, in certain circumstances, be taken into ac- count in condoning delay, although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by it- self is always a sufficient ground. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose, such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhanded way. The High Court, unfortunately, never considered the matter from this angle. If it had, it would have seen quite clearly that there was no attempt to avoid the Limi- tation Act but rather to follow it, albeit or a wrong reading of the situation. 8. It was held in Rahul Mavai v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9050, that the practice of blaming the counsel to explain the delay cannot be encouraged. It was observed: “4. We also disapprove the unwholesome practice of seeking to explain away inordinate delay and laches on approaching the Court on the mere ground that the Counsel who had been dealing with, or entrusted, the matter, was tardy, negli- gent, or indolent. At times, this assertion is sought to be supported by an assertion that the litigant has approached the Bar Council concerned against the counsel. 5. We emphatically disapprove of this practice of shifting, to the shoulders of the Counsel, the negli- gence in approaching the Court. It is easy, in such circumstances, to file a complaint before the Bar Council and seek to explain away the delay. We deprecate this. A litigant does not abandon all re- sponsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is en- trusted to Counsel. 6. That said, if, in fact, the Counsel has been negli- gent, the litigant would have to place, on record, material to indicate that she, or he, has been in touch with the Counsel during the entire period of delay, and that the Counsel has been misleading her, or him. This material must be acceptable, and convincing. The Court has to be satisfied that, in fact, the Counsel has been misleading the client, and that this explains the entire period of delay in approaching the Court. Of course, if the Court is so satisfied, and an innocent litigant has been led up the garden path by an unscrupulous Counsel, the court would not allow injustice to be done, and would, in an appropriate case, condone the delay. 9. It was held in Jagdish v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 1480 that when no enquiry was made from the counsel for six years, it is not a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. It was observed: “6. Be that as it may, the determination made by the revisional authority and learned Single Judge after going through the application made in this regard whereby the allegations were made against the counsel regarding not informing, however, it is nowhere indicated that the appellants have been contacting the counsel and was not given the information pertaining to dismissal. The party, which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case. 10. In the present case, the applicant did not mention that he had made inquiries from his counsel about the fate of his appeal; therefore, his plea that he was not informed by his counsel about the dismissal of the appeal will not help him. 11. In any case, the contents of the application are highly vague. The applicant asserted that he inquired from his Advocate and was told about the dismissal of the appeal. He has not mentioned the date of inquiry or why he had not made such an inquiry earlier. Thus, his submission that the delay was properly explained cannot be accepted. 12. Therefore, the applicant has failed to make out a case for the condonation of the delay. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. 13. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. RST. No. 12736 2024 Since, the application for seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the present petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19 August 2025 (y.s)