A criminal revision against a Family Court maintenance order was filed with a delay of 2324 days. The court found the affidavit's explanation (poverty, illness, ignorance of the ex-parte order) insufficient, relying on Apex Court principles limiting condonation of inordinate unexplained delays.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50275
Court No. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2024
Revisionist :- Susheel Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Farooq Ayoob,Mansi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 (delay condonation application)
" 3. That Present criminal revisionist filed the revision U/S- 19 (4) Family Court Act, 1984. against the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur, in Case No. 190/13/2011, U/S 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Ramawati and another v/s Susheel Kumar), the deponent could not manage the money due to financial problems and health problems, and deponent is very poor person and has no source of income, for this reason this revision in 2324 days delay.
4. That it is relevant to mention here that revisionist was Onth not aware of the ex-parte order dated 20.11.2015 passed against him and he get to know on dated 25.04.2022 when the recovery warrant was issued against the revisionist.
5. That it is relevant to mention here that the revisionist was not aware about the order passed U/S-126 for in this delay has been occurred in filing of revision.
6. That the deponent is poor and rustic persons and is not well aware practice and procedure.
7. That the deponent was not aware of the facts that impugned order is appealable.
8. That the delay in preferring the criminal revision is bonafide and beyond the control of deponent. The delay in filing the criminal revision is neither intentional nor deliberate. "
"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for
condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these
terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
"6. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained everyday by the courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
"6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
"21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." (See also Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] .)
"We do not find that the delay is satisfactorily explained in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. A mere government inefficiency cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. It is for the petitioner to put its own house in order.
The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of."
Order in revision
The revision is dismissed on the ground of limitation as explained herein above.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)
Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Arnima
Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Should the delay of 2324 days in filing the criminal revision be condoned on the grounds of poverty, ill health and ignorance of the ex-parte order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and othersRelied on¶6
(2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶7
(2014) 11 SCC 351 · Who else cites this
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul RahimRelied on¶8
[(1939-40) 67 IA 416 : (1941) 53 LW 212 : AIR 1941 PC 6] · Who else cites this
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of KeralaRelied on¶9
[(1997) 7 SCC 556 : AIR 1998 SC 2276] · Who else cites this
State of Odisha v. Purna Chandra KandiRelied on¶11
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 29657 of 2019
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Smt. Ramawati and another
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
