Aditya Kumar v. Pooja Sachdeva

Aditya Kumar  Vs  Pooja Sachdeva Cr. MP(M) No. 2727 of 2025

31.12.2025 Present: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. The applicant has preferred the accompanying revision against the order dated 05.07.2025, passed by the   Court   of   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   (CBI Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been ordered to be partly allowed.

¶2Since,   the   revision   has   been   filed   after   the prescribed   period   of   limitation,   as   such,   the   present application for condonation of delay, has been filed.

¶3By   way   of   present   application,   the   delay   of about 25 days, in filing the revision, has been sought to be condoned, on the ground that after the decision, the office­clerk of the Counsel for the applicant, before the learned trial Court, had applied for the certified copy of judgment dated 05.07.2025, on 08.07.2025, which was prepared   on   09.07.2025   and   was   delivered   on

14.07.2025,   to   the   applicant.     However,   the   said certified copy is stated to be misplaced in the office of the learned Counsel and the same was traced out only on 30.08.2025 and thereafter, revision petition has been filed.

¶4Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that the delay caused is beyond the control and power of the applicant.

¶5On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made   to   condone   the   delay.     The   application   is supported by an affidavit.

¶6When, put to notice, the application has been contested by the respondent, on the ground that there is no justification of the delay in filing the revision after the prescribed period of limitation.

¶7The   ground   for   condonation   of   delay,   as pleaded   in   the   application   is   also   stated   to   be   not sufficient   cause   for   condonation   of   delay.     The accompanying revision petition is also stated to be an afterthought   act   and   a   counterblast   to   the   revision petition filed by the non­applicant bearing CMPMO No. 493 of 2025, against the order dated 05.07.2025.

¶8On merits, the contents of the application have also been assailed on the similar grounds.  Lastly, it has been pleaded that the applicant could not make out a case for condonation of delay.

¶9On   the   basis   of   above   facts,   Mr.   Sameer Thakur, Advocate, for the non­applicant prayed that the application be dismissed.   Reply is duly supported by the affidavit of the non­applicant Pooja Sachdeva.

¶10Heard.

¶11By   way   of   judgment   dated   05.07.2025,   the learned Appellate Court, has partly allowed the appeal preferred   by   the   applicant.     Thereafter,   the   present revision   petition   has   been   filed,   which   is   barred   by limitation, and the ground for condonation of delay, has been pleaded about the fact that after the receipt of the certified copy, the same has been misplaced in the office of   the   learned   Counsel,   before   the   learned   Appellate Court.

¶12The said assertion has been contested by the non­applicant, however, the reply is totally silent about any negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, in not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation.

¶13When, the negligence or inaction has not been pleaded, then the version, which has been given in the application, which is also supported by the affidavit of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the delay in not   preferring   the   revision   before   this   Court   within prescribed period of limitation is not intentional.   No object is going to be achieved, by the applicant, in not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had the applicant not been prevented to do so, by the reasons, as mentioned in the application.

¶14Another ground, for condonation of delay, is that order dated 05.07.2025, has also been assailed by the non­applicant, by filing CMPMO No. 493 of 2025.  In such situation, this Court is of the view that since the order in issue, has also been called in question by the non­applicant, by filing CMPMO No. 493 of 2025, the matter   should   be   decided   on   merits   and   not   on   the ground of technicalities.

¶15Considering the above facts, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned.

¶16Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision

No. _______ of 2025

¶17Vide   order   of   the   even   date,   passed   in   Cr. MP(M) No. 2727 of 2025, delay in filing the Criminal Revision   has   been   ordered   to   be   condoned.   Be registered.

¶18Service is complete.

¶19Be tagged with CMPMO No. 493 of 2025.

¶20List on 18.03.2026. Cr. MPST No. 9262 & 9263 of 2025

¶21Applications for exemption in filing certified/ typed/original copies of documents is allowed, as prayed for and are disposed of. Cr. MPST No. 9265 of 2025

¶22The present application is dismissed, being not pressed, at this stage. ( Virender Singh )

Judge 31st December, 2025 (Pramod)