Allowed¶11

Ram Lok v. State Bank of India and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Jun 2026CRMPM/551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 32 days' delay in filing a criminal revision; delay condoned on affidavit-supported plea of unawareness of appellate dismissal; applicant made enquiries on 25.2.2025, applied for certified copies of Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments, came to Shimla on 7.3.2025; courts liberal for short-duration delays; no reply filed; revision registered; notice to respondents; record requisitioned; decided by Judge Rakesh Kainthla on 22.6.2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 32-day delay in filing the criminal revision; the application was disposed of and the revision directed to be registered. ¶11

Ram Lok Vs State Bank of India and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ram Lok vs. SBI & anr.

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.6.2026

¶3

22.6.2026 Present:

¶4

Mr M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

¶5

Mr Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1/SBI.

¶6

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 2025

¶7

The applicant/petitioner has filed the present

¶8

petition for condonation of 32 days’ delay in filing the criminal revision. It has been asserted that the applicant could not file the present criminal revision within time because he was unaware of the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Appellate Court. He made enquiries from his learned counsel on 25.2.2025 and was informed that the appeal was dismissed. The applicant contacted the learned counsel on 5.3.2025, who told him (the applicant) that certified copies of the judgment of the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court were required. The applicant applied for the certified copies and came to Shimla on 7.3.2025, when the present petition was prepared and was immediately filed. The delay occurred because of the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned.

¶9

No reply to the application was filed.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

¶11

The plea taken by the applicant that he was not aware of the dismissal of his appeal is duly supported by an affidavit, and there is no reason to disbelieve this plea at this stage. The applicant should indeed have been more vigilant and frequently enquired about the dismissal of the appeal, but the failure to do so cannot be said to be grossly negligent. These is a delay of only 32 days in filing the revision. The Courts are generally liberal in condoning the delay of a short duration. Hence, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned.

¶12

The present application stands disposed of.

¶13

Cr. Revision (Filing) No. 1750 of 2025

¶14

The delay in filing the revision has been condoned vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 2025. Revision be registered.

¶15

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2-State.

¶16

Issue notice to respondent No.1 returnable within four weeks on taking steps within one week.

¶17

A copy of the revision be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2State.