Advocate’s inability to comprehend a judicial order is not sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside an order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts

The impugned order had remanded a matter to the Trial Court for the reappreciation of pre-summoning evidence

Along with the petition, the petitioner filed an application (CRL.M.A. 17791/2024) seeking condonation of a delay of approximately 412 days

The petitioner contended that the delay was not intentional, asserting that he initially struggled to comprehend the legal implications of the order and required extensive legal research

He further argued that Section 482 has no prescribed limitation period and the application was filed merely out of abundant caution

The Court applied the principle that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, not a right, and requires a "sufficient cause" rather than a "mere excuse," as established in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School

While Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not prescribe a specific limitation period, the court relied on Londhe Prakash Bhagwan v. Dattatraya Eknath Mane, which mandates that remedies must be sought within a "reasonable time"

Furthermore, drawing from Rajesh Chetwal v. State, the Court noted that a period of 90 days—at par with a revision petition—is generally treated as a reasonable timeframe for filing a Section 482 petition, beyond which any delay must be cogently explained

The Court rejected the petitioner’s explanation for the delay, characterizing it as unsatisfactory

It specifically noted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate; therefore, the plea that he required over a year to understand a judicial order and conduct legal research was untenable

The Court reasoned that if "difficulty in understanding an order" were accepted as sufficient cause, the law of limitation and the doctrine of laches would become otiose

The Court emphasized that a self-represented litigant, especially a lawyer, must exercise due diligence and reasonable promptitude

Since the petitioner failed to provide a day-to-day or even stage-wise explanation for the intervening 14 months, the Court found a complete lack of diligence

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay

Consequently, the main petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed as being barred by delay and laches

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly