Condonation of delay is a discretionary relief, not a matter of right, requiring proof of due diligence.

The Petitioner filed a criminal complaint and an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking the registration of an FIR, which the Magisterial Court declined, opting instead for pre-summoning evidence.

After leading evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint on 09.06.2022, finding no prima facie case as the allegations were merely oral and lacked documentary support.

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a Revision Petition before the Court of Sessions in 2025—nearly three years later—accompanied by a delay condonation application citing financial constraints and health issues.

The Revisional Court dismissed the application on 19.11.2025, noting the delay was unexplained by evidence and the application was not even supported by the Petitioner’s own affidavit.

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court challenging the dismissal of the revision on grounds of limitation.

1. Whether the Petitioner demonstrated "sufficient cause" to warrant the condonation of an inordinate delay of nearly three years in filing a Revision Petition.

2. Whether the lack of a personal affidavit and supporting medical/financial documentation renders an application for condonation of delay liable for dismissal.

Article 131 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates a 90-day period for filing a criminal revision.

Condonation of delay is a discretionary power, not a matter of right, as established in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA).

Rules of limitation serve public policy and ensure litigation attains finality to prevent the "Sword of Damocles" from hanging indefinitely over a litigant (H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah).

Fairness in justice requires balancing the complainant’s remedies with the accused’s right to certainty and finality (X v. State (NCT of Delhi)).

The court observed a "lax approach" by the Petitioner, noting that while the dismissal order was passed in June 2022, the revision was filed only in March 2025.

The court found the Petitioner’s explanations—financial hardship and back pain—to be "vague assertions" unsupported by any documentary evidence or medical records.

Critically, the court highlighted that the condonation application was supported only by the counsel's affidavit rather than the Petitioner's, rendering it legally insufficient.

The court reasoned that since the Petitioner failed to account for various periods of time (specifically the 10-month gap after obtaining certified copies in May 2024), there was a total lack of due diligence.

Following the precedent that judicial discretion for condonation cannot be exercised in cases of "inordinate delay, negligence or lack of due diligence," the court found no merit in reopening the matter.

The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that the law of limitation is intended to ensure litigation attains finality and cannot be bypassed through casual or indifferent conduct.