Delay cannot be condoned where the applicant knowingly evaded proceedings and offers an unsatisfactory explanation.

The applicant sought condonation of a delay reported as 336 days in filing a Criminal Revision against the order dated 15 September 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Paonta Sahib, in Case No. 146-N/4 of 2020.

In that proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of ₹5,000 per month was awarded to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to each minor child.

The applicant claimed that he was a private driver who remained out of station and became aware of the ex parte judgment only upon receiving summons in execution proceedings in August 2026.

The record, however, showed that the applicant had been proceeded against ex parte on 24 April 2024, had filed an application for recall of that order, and that application was dismissed on 19 February 2025.

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the Criminal Revision.

Whether the applicant’s explanation that he was frequently out of station due to his profession and learned of the ex parte judgment only upon receiving execution summons was credible and satisfactory.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned only when the applicant demonstrates sufficient or justifiable cause for not approaching the Court within the prescribed limitation period or within a reasonable time thereafter.

The Court also applied the principle that a party seeking discretionary condonation must make a truthful and satisfactory disclosure of the relevant procedural history and explain the entire period of delay.

The Court found the applicant’s explanation unacceptable because the record established that he was aware of the proceedings and of his ex parte status well before the impugned judgment.

His prior application seeking recall of the ex parte order demonstrated such knowledge, and its dismissal on 19 February 2025 was not challenged further.

Despite this knowledge, he did not resume participation in the proceedings, including at the stage when the wife led evidence on 2 May 2025.

The plea that his occupation as a driver required him to remain out of station therefore did not explain the delay.

The Court also noted that the application under Section 5 failed to disclose the material fact that the recall application had been filed and dismissed, further undermining the credibility and sufficiency of the explanation.

The application for condonation of delay was accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.