Allowed¶19

Yadav Nandan v. Ishani Kumari and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CMP.M/1480/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 2 years 25 days in filing Civil Revision against Family Court Mandi order dated 22.06.2023 rejecting Section 45 Indian Evidence Act application for DNA test of Anil Kumar; earlier Article 227 petition CMPMO No.596 of 2023 withdrawn 28.03.2025 with liberty to file afresh; revision instituted 14.07.2025; time spent pursuing earlier litigation excluded following Supreme Court judgment Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram (SLP No.17665 of 2024); delay condoned, application allowed; revision to be registered, listed 28.04.2026; Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing the Civil Revision condoned; application allowed and disposed of; revision directed to be registered and listed for consideration on 28.04.2026. ¶19

Yadav Nandan Vs Ishani Kumari and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing the Civil Revision condoned; application allowed and disposed of; revision directed to be registered and listed for consideration on 28.04.2026.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing the Civil Revision against the impugned order dated 22.06.2023 should be condoned.

¶6

Court's answer

Since the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the litigation before this Court — his earlier petition having been withdrawn on 28.03.2025 with liberty to file afresh, and the respondent being represented therein — the delay cannot come in the petitioner's way; the respondent could have objected at the time liberty to institute afresh was granted.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The period during which the petitioner was litigating before this Court (the earlier petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh) has to be excluded in computing the delay, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above (Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram).

¶17

Key takeaways

It is settled law that a party should be granted substantive justice and the claim should not be rejected on technical grounds.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — CMP(M) No.1480 of 2025, decided 07.04.2026 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge). The applicant sought condonation of a delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing a Civil Revision against the order dated 22.06.2023 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, whereby his application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for a DNA test of Sh. Anil Kumar, son of Sh. Jiva Nand, was rejected. The petitioner had earlier pursued the same challenge through CMPMO No.596 of 2023 ('Yadav Nandan vs. Ishani Kumari @ Nisha'), a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-8) with liberty to file afresh; the revision was instituted on 14.07.2025. Held: (i) as the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the litigation before this Court and the respondent was represented in the earlier petition — she could have objected when liberty to file afresh was granted — the delay cannot come in the petitioner's way; (ii) the period spent litigating before this Court has to be excluded in computing the delay, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram, SLP No.17665 of 2024 (para 36 thereof, quoting Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., being reproduced); and (iii) substantive justice should not be defeated on technical grounds. Application allowed; delay condoned; revision to be registered and listed for consideration on 28.04.2026.

¶1

Yadav Nandan vs. Ishani Kumari @ Asha Devi @ Ashu

¶2

CMP(M) No.1480 of 2025

¶3

07.04.2026 Present:

¶4

Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶6

By way of present application, the applicant/petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay of 02 years and 25 days in filing the Civil Revision.

¶7

It is not in dispute that before instituting the Civil Revision against the impugned order dated 22.06.2023, passed by Ld. Principal Judge Family Court Mandi, District Mandi, HP, the petitioner had filed CMPMO No.596 of 2023, titled, Yadav Nandan vs. Ishani Kumari @ Nisha, which was permitted to be withdrawn, as per order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P- 8), with liberty to file afresh. After passing the aforesaid order on 28.03.2025, the petitioner had instituted the present Civil Revision on 14.07.2025.

¶8

It has been averred in the application that the applicant/petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the said order on 26.04.2024 and the copy of the same was received on 07.05.2024. In the application, it has been stated that the impugned order was challenged thereafter, but the petition registered

¶9

as CMPMO No. 596 of 2023, was preferred much earlier to the said date..

¶10

The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 22.06.2023, whereby the application filed by him under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the DNA test of one Sh. Anil Kumar, son of Sh. Jiva Nand, came to be rejected.

¶11

The respondents have filed reply to the application and submitted that the petitioner has remained slept over the matter for last 02 years and 25 days and now he cannot be allowed to reopen the case. Further, no sufficient cause has been made out by him for condonation of delay and such long delay cannot be condoned as a matter or right. The respondent has however admitted that the petitioner had earlier chosen to file the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and now he cannot be allowed to reopen the case in another petition. Further there is sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner and no sufficient cause has been made out by him to condone the delay.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply and has rebutted the contentions and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.17665 of 2024, titled, Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram , wherein it was held that the time

¶13

undertaken by the party in pursuing the remedy under Writ Jurisdiction has to be excluded.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also pursued the record carefully.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed the petition before this Court, which came to be withdrawn on 28.03.2025, with liberty to file afresh. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant Revision Petition and since the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the litigation before this Court, the delay cannot come in his way to pray for quashing the impugned order. It is not the case of the respondent that she was not represented in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, which came to be withdrawn on 28.03.2025. In case the respondent had any grievance, she could have objected at that time when the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for to institute or file afresh.

¶16

It is settled law that the party should be granted the substantive justice and should not reject the claim on technical grounds. The petitioner had earlier engaged a counsel, who inspite of preferring the revision petition, had preferred the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and once this Court had granted the permission to institute the

¶17

petition afresh, the period when the petitioner was litigating in the Court has to be excluded as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-

¶18

“36. More recently, in Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.6 (2-Judge Bench), this Court followed the dictum in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises (Supra) and M.P. Steel (Supra) to exclude the time period undertaken by the Plaintiff therein in pursuing remedy under Writ Jurisdiction, in the absence of challenge to the bona fides of the Plaintiff, in view of Section 14.”

¶19