Advocate Needing Time To Understand Impugned Order Can’t Justify Delay Of More Than One Year: Delhi High Court Dismisses Delay Condonation Application

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the setting aside of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the first accused and quashing the summoning order passed against him. The applicant also sought condonation of the delay of 412 days in filing the petition.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “What thus emerges from the record is that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner was engaged in understanding the impugned order and conducting legal research in itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of about one year, especially when the petitioner himself is a practising advocate.”

“To reiterate, the contention of the petitioner that he is a practising advocate and that he required considerable time to understand the impugned order and undertake legal research cannot, by itself, justify a delay of more than one year in approaching this Court. If such a ground were to be accepted as a sufficient explanation, it would render the law of limitation and the principles of delay and laches, largely otiose, and would make it extremely difficult for any Court to reject an application for condonation of delay under the law of limitation or cases where no limitation is prescribed”, it added.

The petitioner appeared in-person while Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the party seeking such indulgence is required to place before the Court a cogent and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay, preferably explaining the delay day-to-day or at least stage-wise. The Bench found that the petitioner had failed to provide any such explanation.

“The present application filed by the petitioner is conspicuously silent with respect to the steps taken by the petitioner during the long intervening period of more than one year after the passing of the impugned order. There is no disclosure of any specific dates, events, or circumstances explaining the cause of delay and as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court within a reasonable time”, it added.

Considering that the petitioner, who himself is a practising advocate, claimed that he faced difficulty in understanding the impugned order, and he was engaged in understanding the impugned order, which led to the consumption of time, the Bench stated, “The record does not indicate that the petitioner exercised due diligence or reasonable promptitude in pursuing the remedy available to him. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if such explanations were to be readily accepted, the requirement of showing “sufficient cause” for delay would lose its meaning as every litigant or lawyer will take this ground that he was unable to understand the judicial order and remained busy in understanding the order and conducting legal research for more than one year.”

The Bench was of the view that while there is no specific prescribed period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging an order, such a petition must be filed within a reasonable period of time, must not suffer from undue delay and laches and must disclose sufficient cause for the delay caused.

Thus, holding that the petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the present petition, the Bench dismissed the application. The Bench also dismissed the captioned petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., being barred by delay and laches.

Cause Title: Ajit Kumar Gola v. State (GNCTD) and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2829)

Appearance

Petitioner: Petitioner in person

Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal, Advocates Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta, SI Priyanka, Advocates Ankit Rana, Tushar Rohmetra, Rajiv Singh, Shipra Bali, Bharat Khurana, Sarthak Malhotra, Anubhav Sharma

Click here to read/download Order