Anil Kumar Vs. Myckra Affiliates Cr. MP(M) No. 1588 of 2025 12.8.2026 Present: None. The present application has been filed for condonation of 231 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant was not aware of the judgment dated 19.7.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. and he could not contact his counsel due to the ailment of his mother and adverse family circumstances. He remained busy in the hospital to look after his mother who was suffering from knee issue and the Doctor advised her to undergo knee replacement. The applicant is unemployed and was unable to arrange money for treatment of his mother. He came to Shimla in March 2025 and contacted his counsel, who advised him to bring the entire case file. This led to the delay which is unintentional. Hence the application. The application has been opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that the applicant was aware of the judgment dated 19.7.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. No sufficient explanation has been provided for delay in filing the revision after receiving the copy of the judgment on 30.9.2024. The medical record attached with the application pertains to 18.6.2024 and mentions an entry regarding knee ache and spondylitis which are common problems. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 30.7.2026, when the matter was listed. Thereafter, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant even today also. The applicant has relied upon the OPD Slip dated 18.6.2024, in which a complaint of knee pain and spondylitis was mentioned and X-ray was advised for LS Spine and Knee by the Doctor. The judgment was passed by the learned Appellate Court on 19.7.2024 which means that the judgment was passed after the petitioner’s mother had taken the treatment from the hospital. There is nothing on record to show that the treatment continued even after the passing of the judgment. Therefore, the reason mentioned by the applicant that he remained busy in the hospital due to ailment of his mother is not supported by any material placed on record. The plea taken by the petitioner that he was unable to arrange the money and to contact his counsel has not been supported by any medical on record. Moreover, he could easily sought the legal aid counsel to represent him in case he was in the paucity of funds. The plea that the applicant was not aware of the passing of the judgment will not help him because he was supposed to contact his counsel and he cannot take advantage of his inaction by throwing the blame upon the learned counsel.1 Therefore, there is no merit in the averments made by the petitioner and the present application is dismissed. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision (ST) No. 5268 of 2025 Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been dismissed vide separate order passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 1588 of 2025, the proposed revision petition is dismissed being barred by limitation, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th August, 2026 (Chander) 1 Rajneesh Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3380