Allowed¶11

Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026CMP.M/300/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; delay in filing accompanying review petition condoned as neither intentional nor deliberate and attributable to circumstances beyond applicant's control; sufficient cause explained; State's opposition on ground of no plausible explanation rejected; Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of HP; CMP.M-300 of 2026; order dated 14.07.2026; review petition to be registered and listed on 20.08.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the accompanying review petition condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; application disposed of; accompanying Review Petition No.___ of 2026 directed to be registered ('Be registered'); notice issued with service waived by counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/State, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5; matter listed on 20.08.2026. ¶11

Sanjeev Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

SANJEEV CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

¶2

14.07.2026

¶3

CMP.M-300 of 2026 Present: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.

¶5

Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶6

Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶7

CMP.M-300 of 2026

¶8

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying revision petition, which is barred by limitation.

¶9

Non-applicant/respondent-State has filed reply, wherein prayer made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay has been opposed on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the accompanying review petition. Other non-applicants/respondents have not filed reply.

¶10

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond

¶11

the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such, delay in filing the review petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

Review Petition No._______ of 2026

¶14

Be registered.

¶15

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate and Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3/State, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5, respectively.

¶16

List on 20.08.2026.

¶17

July 14, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Suman Kumar Vs Sher Singh and Another

Hppcl and Another Vs Balvinder Singh and Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Tushar Chander Vs State of Hp

Ankit Gupta Vs Joginder Singh