Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/1189/2026 of Jagdish Kumar Vs Pariksha Devi and others on 8 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1189 of 2026 Decided on: 08.09.2026 Jagdish Kumar ...Applicant Versus Pariksha Devi & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:HHC:38479 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.1189 of 2026 Decided on: 08.09.2026 Jagdish Kumar
...Applicant Versus Pariksha Devi & others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 YES _____________________________________________________ For the applicant : Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, Advocate Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
( Oral) Respondents stand served. Mr. Sarthak Upadhyay, learned counsel has put an appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 255 days delay in preferring the present revision petition.
3. Having perused the averments made in the application and having heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, we are of the considered view that no cogent ground has been made out by the applicant/ appellant for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The reasons, which have been given in the application, justifying the delay in approaching the Court, read as under:- “2.That it is humbly submitted by the Applicant/Appellant that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. 2026:HHC:38479 the Applicant/Appellant had no knowledge of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Court below, as the present Applicant/Appellant was unable to contact the counsel engaged before the Ld. ADJ, Family Court, Nahan, and neither did the said counsel ever inform the Applicant/Appellant regarding the passing of the aforesaid order. It is further submitted that the record itself reveals that the then counsel had applied for the certified copy on 01.08.2025, however, thereafter neither information communicated to the Applicant/Appellant nor was the certified copy ever collected from the copying agency. The date of delivery of the certified copy is shown as 08.05.2026, which clearly establishes that the delay in filing the accompanying appeal is neither willful nor intentional, but occurred due to bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant/Appellant.
3. That it is further evident from the record itself that the then counsel for the applicant/appellant had applied for the certified copy on 01.08.2025, however, thereafter neither did he communicate the status of the matter to the applicant/appellant nor did he ever collect the certified copy from the record. The date of delivery of the certified copy is reflected as 08.05.2026, which clearly demonstrates that the delay in filing the accompanying appeal is neither willful nor intentional, but has occurred due to bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicant/appellant.”
4. A perusal of the order under challenge demonstrates that the order was announced by the Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the present applicant/appellant. In light of the fact that the applicant was duly represented by a counsel, this Court has no occasion to believe the justification, which has been given in Paras No.2 and 3 of the application. The same appears to be nothing but a concocted version, just to justify the
3. 2026:HHC:38479 delay in approaching the Court. Otherwise also, the delay in approaching the Court is of 255 days. With the expiry of limitation, a right stands accrued upon the the other party, as after the expiry of the limitation, the other party is under a bonafide belief that either no challenge shall be made to the order in issue or challenge if any shall be made within some reasonable time.
5. In these circumstances, in case, delay of 255 days, and that too, when there is no cogent explanation put forth by the applicant/appellant explaining the delay, is condoned, obviously, it will cause prejudice to the other party.
6. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this Court does not find any reason to allow the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed, so is the fate of the accompanying revision petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge September 08, 2026 (meera)