Dismissed¶22

Deepu Kumar v. Surinder Singh Alias Pankaj

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Mar 2026CRMPM/298/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; criminal appeal; barred by limitation; limitation period; sufficient cause; change of counsel; No Objection Certificate; trial court order 20.8.2025; merits cannot cure unexplained delay; vigilantibus non dormientibus; Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Co. v. ESIC (1971) 2 SCC 860; H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54; Deepu Kumar vs. Surinder Singh alias Pankaj; Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2026; Cr. Appeal (A-SB) Filing No. 573 of 2026; Rakesh Kainthla; decided 18.3.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; condonation of delay refused and the appeal dismissed as barred by limitation. ¶22

Deepu Kumar Vs Surinder Singh Alias Pankaj — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; condonation of delay refused and the appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the 59 days' delay in filing the criminal appeal should be condoned on the grounds advanced (change of counsel, pendency of trial-court matters, inability to attend on 20.8.2025). +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

The change-of-counsel explanation covers only the circumstances before, and not after, the passing of the order; the application is silent on the actual cause of the delay.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Although the applicant asserted that the delay was due to bona fide, unintentional and unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, he failed to narrate those circumstances, gave no reason for his absence, and did not even assert that he was unaware of the date fixed; no reason whatsoever was shown, and the delay cannot be condoned without any reason.

¶13

Key takeaways

The submission that the applicant has a very good case on merits and the delay should therefore be condoned cannot be accepted (invoking the Supreme Court authority relied upon at ¶14 that delay is not condoned merely because of the merits of the claim).ratio¶14
As the applicant failed to explain the cause of the delay, the condonation application cannot be allowed and is dismissed; consequently the criminal appeal (Cr. Appeal (A-SB) (Filing No. 573 of 2026)) is dismissed as barred by limitation.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused; criminal appeal dismissed as barred by limitation. Deepu Kumar applied (Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2026, reserved 9.3.2026, decided 18.3.2026, Rakesh Kainthla, Judge) for condonation of a 59-day delay in filing his criminal appeal (Cr. Appeal (A-SB) (Filing No. 573 of 2026)) against Surinder Singh alias Pankaj, pleading change of counsel, pendency of trial-court orders (an order passed on 20.8.2025), and procurement of a No Objection Certificate and case file from his original counsel. The court found the application silent on the cause of delay: the explanation addressed events only before, not after, the passing of the order; no reason was given for the applicant's absence; and he did not even claim ignorance of the hearing date. Relying on Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Co. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860 (purpose of limitation periods; law assists the vigilant) and H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 (merits cannot excuse an unexplained delay; bona fides of the explanation must first be ascertained), the judge held that no reason whatsoever had been shown, dismissed the condonation application, and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

¶1

Deepu Kumar vs. Surinder Singh alias Pankaj

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2026 Reserved on: 9.3.2026

¶3

18.3.2026 Present : Mr Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

¶4

Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2026

¶5

The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 59 days’ delay in filing the criminal appeal. It has been asserted that the delay occurred because of bona fide, unintentional and unavoidable circumstances that were beyond the applicant’s control. The matter remained pending before the learned Trial Court for proper orders on multiple occasions. The applicant/appellant intended to engage a local counsel. He obtained a No Objection Certificate and case file from the original counsel. The matter could not be effectively attended to on 20.8.2025. The applicant contacted the original counsel after passing the order, which led to a delay. Hence, the present application.

¶6

I have heard Mr Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submitted that the delay occurred because of the change of counsel. It was unavoidable and due to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Therefore, he prayed that the present

¶7

application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶8

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶9

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Co. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860 , that the period of limitation has been enacted to ensure that the actions are commenced within a particular period and give effect to the principle that the law does not assist an inactive person. It was observed:-

¶10

“The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time, as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶11

The application is silent about the cause of the

¶12

delay. It mentions that the applicant had changed the

¶13

counsel and could not appear before the Court on the date fixed. This explains the circumstances before and not after the passing of the order. The applicant asserted that the delay was due to the bona fide, unintentional and unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, but he failed to narrate the circumstances. The applicant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Trial Court and was required to be present on each and every date of hearing. He had not mentioned any reason for his absence. He has not even asserted that he was not aware of the date fixed. Thus, the applicant has not shown any reason, whatsoever, for the condonation of delay, and the delay cannot be condoned without any reason.

¶14

It was submitted that the applicant has a very good case on merits, and the delay should be condoned. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, that the delay cannot be condoned because of the merits of the claim. It was observed:

¶15

“15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

¶16

16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter that the court must take into consideration

¶17

while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which the law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed to be a nondeliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufÏcient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side are equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

¶18

17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

¶19

The applicant has failed to explain the cause of

¶20

the delay in filing the appeal; hence, the application cannot be allowed, and it is dismissed.

¶21

Cr. Appeal (A-SB) (Filing No. 573 of 2026)

¶22

Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be dismissed, hence the present appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶23

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶24

18^th March, 2026 (Chander)

Deepu Kumar v. Surinder Singh Alias Pankaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu Kumar v. Surinder Singh Alias Pankaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Devi (deleted) Suman Sood and othhers Vs Kiran Bala

Kanshi Ram Vs State of Hp

Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp Vs Naresh Kumar @ Rinku

State of Hp Vs Nisha Kumari

Paramjeet Singh Alias Pamma Vs State of Hp