Allowing Petitions To Languish Under Objections To Save Limitation 'Can't Be Countenanced': Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a 281-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition, holding that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of an earlier filing date after allowing a petition to remain under objections for months and later withdrawing it on technical grounds.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed against a trial court order setting aside the summoning of the accused in a forgery case.
The record showed that Petitioner had initially attempted to file a revision petition. However, that petition was returned with office objections and remained in that defective state for several months. Eventually, the petitioner withdrew the first petition on 27 May 2025, citing typographical errors and issues relating to bookmarking of annexures, and thereafter filed a fresh petition.
The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned by treating the date of the initial defective filing as the relevant date for limitation.
The High Court however held that the petition could be treated as having been effectively filed only on the date when it was re-presented in a proper form, not when it was first filed.
“It is not disputed that the said petition remained under objections and was ultimately withdrawn on 27.05.2025. In such circumstances, the said petition can be treated as having been effectively filed only on 26.05.2025. To take a contrary view would amount to accepting that a litigant can file a petition on a particular date, allow it to remain under objections for months together, and thereafter claim the benefit of the earlier date of filing, which cannot be countenanced,” it observed.
The Court further noted that the petition was withdrawn merely on account of typographical errors and issues relating to bookmarking of annexures. “No explanation has been furnished as to why such basic defects could not have been rectified promptly,” it added.
As such, the Court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for the delay, and dismissed the plea.
Appearance: Mr. Shahrukh Alam, Mr. Shantanu Singh, Mr. Anupam Kirti, Mr. Akshat Chaitanya, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Amisha Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Rose Verma, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Jugal Wadhwa, Mr. Rose Verma, Mr. Raghav Goel and Ms. Priyal Jain, Advocates for R-3.
Case title: Ms. X v. State
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 482/2025