Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/261/2026 on 29 October 2026
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:47864 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.261 of 2026 in Cr.Rev.(FC)ST No.12154 of 2025 Decided on: 29.10.2026 Banita Devi & others … Applicants/petitioners. Versus Brij Mohan … Non-applicant/Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the applicants: Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate. For the non-applicant: Ms. Manjeet Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the present petition. As per report of the Registry, the petition is barred by 256 days.
2. A perusal of the application demonstrates that the only reason which has been spelled out in the application for not approaching the Court either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter is as follows:- “2. That the appellants/applicants have entrusted the brief to the Counsel in the Ld. Trial Court with the understanding the appellants/applicants will do the needful as she was busy in her further studies as appellant is perusing MA and was preparing for UGC (NET).
3. That the appellants/ applicants were also not aware of the limitation as prescribed under law for filing Criminal Revision.” [ [
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application, according to us, the reasons which have been assigned in the application are not good
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:51:44 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47864 reasons to condone an inordinate delay of more than 250 days in approaching the Court. The applicant No.1 is not a rustic illiterate lady and her contention that she was not aware of the limitation, cannot be taken on its face value. Nothing prevented the applicants from approaching the Court within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter. Even if, we have to accept the contention of the applicants that applicant No.1 was not aware of the period of limitation, then we could have given benefit to the applicant, had she approached the Court beyond the period of limitation, but within some reasonable period thereafter. Delay of 256 days means that the applicants approached this Court after more than 150 days even after the expiry of the period of limitation.
4. Therefore, obviously, with the expiry of limitation, a valuable right stands accrued upon the other side and as the applicants have not been able to portray before this Court that they could not bonafidely approach the Court either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter, the present application is dismissed, so is the fate of the main case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge
October 29, 2026 (Rishi) High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 15:51:44 :::CIS