Delhi District Court
Prabhu Lal vs State on 3 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 05 EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No.252/2024
Sh. Prabhu Lal
S/o Sh. Puran Ram
R/o H.No.5/171, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
......Revisionist
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor
2. Sh. Chet Ram
S/o Sh. Mangi Ram
R/o H.No.3/98, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
3. Sh. Tika Ram
R/o H.No.3/108, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
4. Sh. Vijay Pathak
R/o H.No.3/148-A, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
5. Sh.Suresh
R/o H.No.3/99, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
6. Sh. Jasbir
R/o H.No.3/160, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
7. Sh. Gain Chand
R/o H.No.4/165, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
8. Sh. Raj Rani
W/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o H.No.5/172, Lalita Park, Digitally
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 1 2025.04.03
15:58:42
+0530
9. Sh. Kunwar Pal
S/o Sh. Shankar
R/o H.No.4/169, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
10. Sh. Amar Nath
S/o Sh. Mangi Ram
R/o H.No.3/99, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
11. Sh. Jai Prakash
S/o Sh. Puran Ram
R/o H.No.4/171A, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
.....Respondents
Date of institution 22.03.2024
Arguments heard on 12.03.2025
Date of order 03.04.2025
ORDER
1. The instant Revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Ld.MM, East, Karkardooma Court in Complaint Case titled as Prabhu Lal V. Chet Ram & ors. thereby the complaint of revisionist was dismissed U/s 203 Cr.PC as being barred by the Limitation.
2. In the said Impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has observed "that the complainant had alleged the Commission of offence U/s 500/34 IPC. As per Section 500 IPC, the offence of defamation is punishable with two year or with fine or with both. The period of limitation for offence U/s 500 IPC is three years, however, complainant had filed the Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi complaint after 4 years after the commission of offence. Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 15:58:52 +0530 The complainant had not filed any explanation with CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 2 respect to the delay in filing the present complaint nor had filed any application for condonation of delay". Taking the same into the account, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist as being barred as per the section 468 of Cr.PC against the said order, the instant revision petition was filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist submits that against the impugned order dated 07.11.2023, initially appeal was filed on 15.03.2024 and the same was later on converted to revision petition as impugned order is a summoning order against which revision and not the appeal lies. Therefore, the period of limitation was 90 days from the date of impugned order. If the same is taken into account, the present revision petition has been filed after a delay of 48 days. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is almost 80 years old aged person and suffering from many diseases and impugned order is dated 07.11.2023 and during that time winter was setting in and the Revisionist is an asthmatic. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further submits that the wife of the revisionist is also a very old aged lady and suffering from various aged related problems. In addition, Ld. Counsel for revisionist further submits that revisionist being a layman and did not know the court procedure. Hence, there was a delay in filing of Digitally signed by present revision. Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 15:58:59
4. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further submitted that +0530 cognizance was taken by the Ld. Trial Court and section 468 clearly says that if matter is barred by limitation then CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 3 court not to taken cognizance. Since cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the Ld. Trial Court, the delay automatically stood condoned, therefore, dismissing the complaint U/s 203 Cr.PC is bad in lock.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that first of all revisionist cannot be presumed to be a layman and he is a retired IRS officer and multiple litigations of revisionist are pending against the respondent in various courts.
Moreover, ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. He further submits that all the documents, impugned order and etc. could have been supplied to the counsel digitally and revision could have been filed on time. Moreover, old aged and ignorance of law cannot be the ground to considered for sufficient cause for condonation delay.
6. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist, Ld. Addl. Sub. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for respondent.
7. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives discretion to the Court to condone the delay upon sufficient cause having provided. Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under:-
Extension of period in certain cases. - An appeal or an application for a review of a judgment or for leave to appeal or an application to set aside an order of dismissal of a suit for plaintiff's default or an application to set aside a decree passed ex- parte in an original suit or appeal or an application to bring the heirs of a deceased party on the record or an application to set Digitally aside an order of abatement of a suit or signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi appeal or any other application to which this Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 section may be made applicable by or under 15:59:06 +0530 an enactment for the time being in force may CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 4 be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation: -- The fact that the appellant or applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
8. The Scope of 5 of Limitation Act in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRS & Ors v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024) 4SCR 241:2024 INSC 286 holds as under:-
Para no. 16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. 2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause Digitally signed by of substantial justice should be allowed to Ashish Ashish Rastogi prevail upon technical considerations and if Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be 15:59:12 +0530 condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 5 condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Para no. 18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd 3 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party.
Para no. 19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. 4, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
Para no. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. Digitally signed by vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 5 wherein Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
while observing, as above, this Court further 2025.04.03 15:59:18 laid down that if some person has obtained a +0530 relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 6 belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. Para no. 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 8, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
Para no. 24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under:
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The Digitally signed by statutory provision may cause hardship or Ashish Ashish Rastogi inconvenience to a particular party but the Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 court has no choice but to enforce it giving 15:59:24 +0530 full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 7 "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute." Para no. 25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause"
which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
9. In light of the above, issue of limitation is to be decided. It is observed that Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that revisionist is almost 80 years old and suffering from Digitally signed by many diseases and wife of the revisionist is also suffering Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 from old age related issues. He further submitted that 15:59:31 +0530 revisionist is layman who does not know the court procedure. In this regard, this court is considered opinion CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 8 with respect to the said ground that no medical documents have been submitted which can prove that revisionist was under treatment and suffering from various health problems. An application for condonation of delay is without any document which can prove that revisionist was prevented from filing the said revision petition by any sufficient cause. Moreover, it can not also be said that the revisionist is a layman who does not understand the court procedure and he is a retired IRS officer and very well educated and multiple litigations of revisionist are pending against the respondent in various courts. Moreover, ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. The said fact that various litigations have been filed by the Revisionist against the respondents and the same are pending in various courts is not controverted by the Ld. Counsel for revisionist in his arguments.
10. Moreover, as has already been discussed elaborately in the Judgment cited above sympathetic consideration like age etc. cannot be a ground to condone the delay in absence of any sufficient cause. This court also a observes that initially complaint was dismissed U/s 203 Cr.PC on the ground that of Limitation itself and now the revision petition against that very order is also filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed. Litigant whose initial Digitally complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi should have been extra cautious that the revision petition Rastogi Date:
2025.04.03 15:59:37 challenging that order is filed within the period of +0530 limitation. Litigants who does not take this basic precaution, can hardly be said to be a bonafide litigants CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 9 and it cannot be said that they are serious in pursuing the remedies available to them as per law.
11. In light of the above, this court does not consider deemed it appropriate to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the instant revision petition. Therefore, the instant Revision Petition is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
Announced in the Open Court signed by
Ashish Ashish Rastogi
on 3 rd of April 2025. Rastogi
Date:
2025.04.03
15:59:47
+0530
(Ashish Rastogi)
Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi CR No.252/2024 Prabhu Lal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 10