( 2026:HHC:21858 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 735 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.04.2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026. Jai Singh ...Appellant Versus Krishan Dass (deceased) through LRs. Salochna Gupta & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : None. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of the delay in filing the present revision. It has been asserted that the petitioner/applicant is a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:21858 ) person aged 68 years. He is bed ridden since long time due to a fall from the stairs. He has sustained multiple injuries in both legs and remains out of station for his treatment from Vaid for many years. He could not contact his counsel for filing the revision because of his ailments. There is a delay of 203 days in filing the revision, which is unintentional and beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply, taking a preliminary objection regarding the applicant having suppressed the material facts from the Court. It was asserted that the applicant had not deliberately filed the revision within time. Learned trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the applicant, and the applicant avoided appearing before the Court. The applicant did not file any medical records to support his plea. He also did not mention any date of the fall. He concocted a false story to cover the delay. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. ( 2026:HHC:21858 ) 3. When the matter was listed for consideration on 30th July, 2005, 13th November, 2025 and 29th April, 2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner; therefore, none could be heard. 4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.6-State. 5. Mr. Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5, submitted that the applicant has failed to establish any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. He has not filed his affidavit or medical records to establish the plea that he is bedridden. Learned Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest to execute the sentence awarded by it, and the applicant has filed the present revision to circumvent the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.6-State, adopted the submissions made by Mr ( 2026:HHC:21858 ) Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and submitted that the application be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The applicant has filed the present revision through a General Power of Attorney, which was executed in January 2025 at Solan. This falsifies the applicant’s plea that he remained outside for his treatment. 9. The application is highly vague. It states that the applicant had sustained multiple injuries to both legs, but does not mention the date of sustaining the injuries. The applicant has not filed his affidavit, any prescription slip, or the medical record in support of his plea. He claimed that he is receiving treatment from a Vaid; however, he failed to mention the name of the Vaid. All these circumstances make it difficult to rely upon the applicant’s version that he had sustained injuries to his leg, and he is bedridden. ( 2026:HHC:21858 ) 10. The applicant has not mentioned any other reason for the condonation of the delay. 11. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. Cr. Revision (ST No. 2130 of 2025) 12. The application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been ordered to be dismissed; the present revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge June, 2026 (ritu)