The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay of 281 days after noting that the explanation tendered by the litigant did not meet the threshold of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], seeking setting aside of the impugned order whereby the petitioners were summoned for offence under Sections 465,466,469,471,120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). An application was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 281 days in filing the revision petition.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the explanation tendered by the petitioner does not meet the threshold of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay at multiple stages, including the period immediately following the passing of the impugned order dated 19.12.2024, the prolonged time taken in clearing objections in the first petition, the withdrawal of the said petition on account of basic defects, the delay in engaging a new counsel and filing a fresh petition, and the further unexplained delay of nearly two months after withdrawal of the second petition in September 2025.”

Advocate Shahrukh Alam represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that before the District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner had taken a plea that she required legal assistance and that she could not effectively contest the proceedings in the absence of a counsel. The record, however, reflected that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the said Court on the dates when the matter was listed for hearing. The Bench also referred to the orders passed by the District & Sessions Judge and the ACJM only to highlight that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and of the necessity of seeking legal assistance and engaging a counsel in a timely manner, particularly when she had already suffered an adverse order due to her own conduct. “These aspects assume relevance while examining the explanation offered for the delay in filing the present petition and the overall bona fides of the petitioner”, it added.

On a perusal of the submissions and the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the , impugned order was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. “What thus emerges from the record is that there is no explanation as to why, even after the impugned order was passed on 19.12.2024, no petition was filed till 19.03.2025. There is also no satisfactory explanation as to why the objections in the first petition were not cleared for nearly two months. Further, there is no explanation as to why, after withdrawal of the first petition, a fresh petition was not filed immediately, and instead, a new counsel was engaged after more than a month, followed by another month taken for preparation and filing the petition. Finally, there is absence of any explanation for the delay of nearly two months after withdrawal of the second petition in September 2025, before filing the present revision petition”, it stated.

Holding that the petitioner had neither pursued the matter with urgency nor demonstrated due diligence at any stage, the Bench held that the delay of 281 days sought to be condoned was not supported by a cogent or satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. The Bench thus dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and also dismissed the accompanying revision petition.

Cause Title: Ms. X v. The State of Nct of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1381)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Shahrukh Alam, Shantanu Singh, Anupam Kirti, Akshat Chaitanya

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, Advocates Amisha Dahiya, Sandeep Kapur, Rose Verma,Sandeep Kapur, Jugal Wadhwa,Rose Verma, Raghav Goel, Priyal Jain

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.