2026:HHC:24030 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.659 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Tej Singh Pal and Another ……...Petitioners Versus Pradeep Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Jiya Lal, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Cr.M.P. No.55 of 2025, whereby application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, having been filed by petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, in case No.2/SDM/Cr.P.C./2022, came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that one Kalandra bearing No.158/6-III, Police Station Bhuntar, dated 13.09.2021, under Sections 107, 145 and 150 of Cr.P.C. came to be 2026:HHC:24030 2 received by learned Sub-Division Magistrate, Kullu, alleging therein that petitioners herein have obstructed a common path leading to the house of the respondent. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directed Naib Tehsildar, Bhuntar, to visit the spot and submit his comprehensive report. Afore authority after visiting the spot submitted his report stating therein that respondent-complainant is owner in possession of Khasra No.4726/4205/3159 and neighbouring respondents (i.e. petitioners herein) are owner-in-possession over Khasra No.3156. Revenue authorities submitted that it has been discovered on the spot that one local path/trail existed from Khasra No.3156 (main road) towards the middle of Khasra No.3156, crossing through Khasra No.4726/4205/3159, which is being used by both complainant and respondent. Since it came to be reported by the Revenue Authorities that there are traces of pagdandi at the spot and the petitioners herein have blocked the said pagdandi crossing through Khasra No.3158, as a result thereof, there is no access to the house of the complainant, Sub-Divisional Magistrate while exercising power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directed petitioners herein not to interfere with the existing pagdandi and permit respondent-complainant to use passage, as detailed hereinabove, to reach his house. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, petitioners preferred criminal revision petition in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, 2026:HHC:24030 3 District Kullu, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional Court’) but since same was barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also came to be filed. Vide order dated 07.07.2025 learned Revisional Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the revision petition. In the afore background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and direct Revisional Court to decide the criminal revision petition filed by petitioners on merit. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Revisional Court, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 5. There was a delay of more than one year in filing the criminal revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, in terms of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. No plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the criminal revision petition and as such, learned Revisional Court proceeded to dismiss the application. Learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently argued that order dated 24.01.2024 passed by 2026:HHC:24030 4 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is nullity in the eye of law and as such, there was no limitation, if any, for laying challenge to such order. 6. Mr. Jiya Lal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, argued that bare perusal of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. suggests that private dispute, if any, inter se parties cannot be resolved by way of proceedings, if any, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., rather for that purpose, appropriate remedy, if any, is to file civil suit in the Civil Court. While making this Court peruse report dated 28.06.2023 submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Bhuntar, pursuant to directions issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, Mr. Jiya Lal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that dispute was inter se private parties and there was no involvement, if any, of public path, hence, Sub-Divisional Magistrate ought not have passed any order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 7. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent, while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court, thereby dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, vehemently argued that though at first instance, petitioners herein have to explain the delay in maintaining the criminal revision petition, but even otherwise, careful perusal of report submitted by Naib Tehsildar clearly reveals that both petitioners and respondent had been using the land comprised in Khasra No.4723/3161 and Khasra No.3160 and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for petitioners to obstruct the path, till the time decree is passed by the competent Court of 2026:HHC:24030 5 law, thereby declaring that no path exists upon afore Khasra numbers. He submitted that bare perusal of order dated 07.07.2025 clearly reveals that petitioners herein have not approached this Court with clean hands, rather they after having failed to obtain stay order from the competent Court of law, i.e. Civil Court, proceeded to file criminal revision petition in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge against the order of learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 8. Admittedly, restraint order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 24.01.2024, thereby directing petitioners herein to remove the obstruction caused by them in Khasra No.4723/3161 and Khasra No.3160. Petitioners herein, being aggrieved, if any, of afore order, could have filed criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. within a period of 90 days, however, for no justifiable reason, criminal revision petition was not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, rather impugned order reveals that at first instance, petitioners approached Civil Court by way of civil suit and along with the same, also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for injunction, but such prayer of them was rejected. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Civil Court, petitioners herein approached learned District Judge, by way of appeal, but same was also dismissed. It is only after dismissal of their appeal, petitioners chose to file criminal revision petition, laying therein challenge to order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which they could have filed within a 2026:HHC:24030 6 period of 90 days from the date of passing of afore order. If the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is perused in its entirety, it cannot be said that plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the criminal revision petition. 9. Though Mr. Jiya Lal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, attempted to argue that since basic order of Magistrate dated 24.01.2024 passed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is nullity, there was no requirement, if any, to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with such submission of him for the reason that order passed by Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. in the case at hand cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Careful perusal of report submitted by Revenue Authorities (Annexure P-6) clearly reveals that though Khasra No.4726/4205/3159, is owned by respondent and passage to aforesaid Khasra number leads through Khasra No.3158, owned by the petitioners. It has also come in the report that passage passing through afore Khasra numbers is being used both by petitioners as well as respondent, which fact has been admitted by the petitioners also. 10. Though Mr. Jiya Lal, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while referring to Section 133 of Cr.P.C., attempted to argue that Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot adjudicate boundary dispute, if any, inter se private parties, rather in that regard, appropriate remedy, if any, is to file civil suit, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Jiya Lal, 2026:HHC:24030 7 learned counsel representing the petitioners, for the reason that once report submitted by Revenue Authorities clearly establishes that there exists a common passage between the Khasra numbers, detailed hereinabove, and the same is used by both the parties, dispute qua the same, if any, cannot be said to be private in nature, rather respondent, who is admittedly using that passage, otherwise being member of public, can claim to have right to pass over the same, especially when factum of there being pagdandi is not disputed. 11. Question of exclusive ownership possession, qua the land over which passage/pagdandi exists, is to be decided by the Civil Court in totality of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Sub-Divisional Magistrate while exercising power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has only proceeded to direct petitioners to remove the obstruction, allegedly caused by them on the path, which was being used by respondent as well as by them. Till the time, issue of ownership as well as existence of path, which is subject matter of the case at hand is not decided by the competent Court of law, i.e. Civil Court, petitioners herein cannot obstruct respondent from using the passage in terms of order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 12. For the discussion made hereinabove, plea raised at the behest of the petitioners that order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction deserves rejection. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Revisional 2026:HHC:24030 8 Court, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua the inordinate delay in filing the criminal revision petition. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Revisional Court and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. June 22, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge