Delhi District Court
Sh Anubhav Bhardwaj vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) Ors on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 364/2023
Anubhav Bhardwaj
s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj
R/o 348, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi).
2. Naveen Kumar Garg
s/o Satya Prakash
r/o H. No. 37, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
3. Sandeep Ahuja
s/o Satpal Ahuja
r/o 40-B, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
4. Yogesh Sharma
r/o 68, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. CHARU
Digitally signed by
CHARU
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16
16:59:11 +0530
Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 1/8
5. Sanjay Bhardwaj
s/o 59-B New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
6. Somnath Sharma
r/o 20, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
7. Anil Gupta
s/o Radhey Lal
r/o 24, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
8. Ravindra Sharma
r/o 13, New Layalpur Colony,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
9. Sanjeev Sharma
r/o not known.
10. Shiv Kumar Sharma
r/o not known. ............. Respondents.
Date of filing : 22.12.2023
Date of arguments : 13.04.2026
Date of order : 16.04.2026
Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16
16:59:18 +0530
Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 2/8
ORDER
1. The present revision petition along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the revisionist Anubhav Bhardwaj assailing the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Ld. MM, Shahdara, whereby the complaint filed by Ms. Uma Bhardwaj (since deceased) was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the complainant. Revisionist is the son of the original complainant.
2. The record indicates that the original complainant, Smt. Uma Bhardwaj (since deceased), filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC in 2019, alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against the respondents. The matter was listed for pre-summoning evidence before Ld. trial court. However, since August 2020, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. On 20.04.2022, counsel for the complainant informed the trial court that the complainant had expired on 05.06.2020 and sought an adjournment to take appropriate steps. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 21.11.2022, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000. Despite this opportunity, no steps were taken by the legal heirs for substitution. On 21.11.2022, the legal heirs appeared only with an application for waiver of the costs imposed earlier, but no application for substitution was filed. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16
16:59:25 +0530
Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 3/8
3. I have heard Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
4. First, I will take up the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. As per Article 131 of the Limitation Act, limitation to file the revision before session court is 90 days from the date of order. In this case, impugned order was passed on 21.11.2022 in the presence of Ld. Counsel for revisionist, hence impugned order was within his knowledge. As per Section 12 of Limitation Act, the period to obtain certified copy is excluded in calculating the limitation period. In the application in hand, the revisionist has stated that he applied for the certified copy on 21.12.2022 which was provided to him on 16.10.2023. However, during arguments, Ld. Counsel conceded that certified copy was supplied to him on 16.03.2023 but not on 16.10.2023. The same has been confirmed from the stamp of Certified Agency affixed on the impugned order which bearing stamp of 16.03.2023. The contention of revisionist that he applied for certified copy on 21.12.2023 is vague as no slip qua receipt of application for certified copy has been annexed by him along with the application to support his contention. This court finds highly improbable that certified copy applied by revisionist in the month of December 2022 was received by him after the delay of almost three months in March 2023 that too of a one-page order. Hence, the court is not convinced with the ground taken by the revisionist that he applied for certified copy in December-2022. In V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors. Reported in Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16 16:59:32 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 4/8 2021 INSC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the period spent in obtaining a certified copy can be excluded only if the application for such copy is made within the prescribed period of limitation. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
" The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy is to be excluded. However, the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made cannot be excluded. If no application for a certified copy has been made, no exclusion can ensue. In fact, the explanation to the provision is a clear indicator of the legal position that the time which is taken by the court to prepare the decree or order cannot be excluded before the application to obtain a copy is made. It cannot be said that the right to receive a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act obviated the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application. The appellant has urged that Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules empowers the NCLAT to exempt parties from compliance with the requirement of any of the rules in the interests of substantial justice, which has been typically exercised in favour of allowing a downloaded copy in lieu of a certified copy. While it may well be true that waivers on filing an appeal with a certified copy are often granted for the purposes of judicial determination, they do not confer an automatic right on an applicant to dispense with compliance and render Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory. The act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but also an indication of the diligence of the aggrieved party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion. In a similar factual scenario, the NCLAT had dismissed an appeal 25 as time-barred under Section 61(2) of the IBC since the appellant therein was present in court, and yet chose to file for a certified copy after five months of the pronouncement of the order."
CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16 16:59:40
+0530
Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 5/8
5. Here, no receipt of application of certified copy has been filed by the revisionist to substantiate his plea of filing said application in December-2022. Thus, it appears that the revisionist applied for the certified copy beyond the limitation period. Consequently, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.
6. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the certified copy was applied for and received by the revisionist on the dates as alleged, the present revision petition would still be barred by limitation. In that scenario, the period of limitation would have expired on 16.05.2023. However, the revision was filed only on 22.12.2023, more than seven months thereafter. The revisionist has offered no explanation whatsoever for this substantial and unexplained delay. Accordingly, the petition is clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, held that the party seeking condonation must explain the delay for the entire period. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala , (1997) 7 SCC 556, it was observed that limitation law may harshly affect a party but must be applied with all its rigour, and courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. Similarly, in State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Court reiterated that delay caused by negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned. Applying these principles, the revisionist has failed to Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.04.16 16:59:50 Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 6/8 demonstrate sufficient cause. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed.
8. Even on merits, the revision petition does not warrant interference. The conduct of the legal heirs shows gross negligence. They failed to inform the court promptly about the death of the complainant. Even if, court consider that at the time of death of complainant in June 2020 the courts were working in restricted manner due to pendamic Covid-19 then also it does not aid the revisionist since regular functioning of the courts resumed since April-2022 but till November-2022 there was no action on the part of revisionist to seek his substitution in the compliant. On the date of passing impugned order also, counsel for revisionist appeared before ld trial court only with the application for waiver of costs without filing application for substitution. Evidently, the revisionist has taken the court proceedings for a ride. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights squarely applies. In Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448, the Supreme Court held that a litigant who is negligent and careless cannot claim indulgence of the court. The present case is a classic example of indolence and lack of diligence. Thus, the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint in default.
9. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision. Consequently, the revision petition, being barred by limitation and devoid of merit,Digitally alsosignedstands by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.04.16 16:59:56 Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 7/8 dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.16
17:00:04 +0530
Announced in the open (Charu Aggarwal)
Court on 16.04.2026. ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara KKD Court, Delhi.Cr. Rev. No. 364/2023 Anubhav Bhardwaj Vs. State and ors. Page No. 8/8