HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4493 of 2024 Sunil …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Abhyudaya Tripathi , Amit Rai , Avesh Pratap Singh , Bal Mukund Singh and Sunil Kumar Chaudhari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. and Manoj Pandey Court No. -88 HON’BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Miscellaneous Case No. 375 of 2024 Sunil Vs. Smt. Preeti on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant namely Sunil, has stated that on 13.12.2023, the Court had passed ex- parte order against the applicant. In that case, 15.06.2023 was the date fixed, on which date the applicant fell ill, due to which, he was unable to attend the Court proceedings. The information of his illness was also given to his counsel, but the learned counsel was unable to attend the Court proceedings. Thereafter the applicant was seriously ill and had to go for treatment by several doctors. During his treatment, he got to know that he has suffered from jaundice, and after treatment when he was fit, he came back to his home. 3. During this period, elder brother of the applicant namely Neetu Kumar has also suffered from paralysis and the whole family of the applicant 2 4493-2024 was involved in his treatment. Due to aforesaid reasons and problems, which he had to suffered, he was unable to appear before the Court below. The mistake is inadvertent and bona fide which can be ignored by the Court below, and in this light, ex-parte order dated 13.12.2023 be recalled and the matter be disposed off on merit, after allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, the Court below has observed that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is of summary nature and the benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act should be given to those person who have shown bona fide reason for not appearing in Court proceedings. 5. The learned Court below has further observed that in the present matter, the applicant/opposite party has been in a habit of delaying the matter intentionally, which can very well be seen by the conduct narrated on the records. Therefore, the delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected, as there was no reasonable ground. It has been further observed by the learned lower Court in the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 that on 12.05.2023 the record of the complaint No. 75/2023 reveals that ex parte order was recalled on costs of Rs.1,000/-, but the applicant/opposite party has not deposited the said amount and also did not file any reply. On the basis of non-filing of the reply, the opportunity granted had come to an end. Thereafter on 21.07.2023, again an application was filed, but when no reply was filed along with it and also the costs which was imposed earlier has not been deposited, the Court had rejected it. 6. It has further been observed that on the last six dates, the opposite party failed to appear before the Court proceedings. The applicant has only mentioned his unavailability in Court proceedings on 15.06.2023, on that very date, on being informed several times telephonically, he has shown his inability to participate in the Court proceedings by which the learned lower Court felt that the applicant/opposite-party/revisionist is not interested to participate in the Court proceedings and thus application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected. 3 4493-2024 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist Ms. Nisha holding brief of Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaudhari has stated that in the interest of justice, the matter may be sent back to the Court below to decide the case on merits after hearing both the parties. She has also taken the ground of the principles of natural justice i.e. "audi alteram partem" which means to provide an opportunity of hearing. 9. Sri Manoj Pandey learned counsel for opposite party No. 2-(Smt. Preeti) has argued that the conduct of the revisionist/opposite party can very well be seen by orders of the various dates, present in the record. He has further stated that no payment has been made to the opposite party No.2, as the revisionist and the opposite party No.2 are legally wedded couple and she has a right to be maintained when she is unable to maintain herself. Moreover, the revisionist-applicant has also not complied with the order as to the payment costs of Rs.1,000/- passed by the Court below, which clearly shows the conduct of the revisionist/applicant, therefore, the instant revision be dismissed, as having no merits. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 Sri L.D. Rajbhar, has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has passed the order dated 06.08.2024 based on law and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the said impugned order. 11. In the case of Basawaraj Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jann 2009 (64) ACC 571 SC, it has been held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be given liberal interpretation. 12. Thus, in the light of observations made hereinabove and keeping in view the arguments submitted by both the side as well as the nature of case and law in this regard, Basawaraj Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Miscellaneous Case No. 375 of 2024 4 4493-2024 Sunil Vs. Smt. Preeti on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not seems to be just and lawful, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 13. The present criminal revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Miscellaneous Case No. 375 of 2024 Sunil Vs. Smt. Preeti on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is set aside. The learned lower Court is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to both sides, afresh on the application filed by the revisionist/opposite party before it, after payment all costs etc., and if the revisionist/opposite makes any effort to delay the matter, then, it should not be permitted. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below in the month of October, 2025 last week and it is expected that learned Court below should decide the application as soon as possible without providing any adjournment to the revisionist/opposite party. (Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) September 19, 2025 NSC Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad