Court Upholds Dismissal of Revision Application Due to Insufficient Cause for Delay
In a recent judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the application for condonation of a 130-day delay in filing a revision petition by Kishori Lal against Surender Kumar. The court upheld the validity of summons served on Kishori Lal’s father, deeming it as a personal service under Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The case revolved around Kishori Lal’s claim that he was unaware of the hearing date as his father, who received the summons, failed to inform him. Consequently, he missed the court date on December 12, 2024, leading to the dismissal of his complaint for non-prosecution. Lal argued that he was unable to visit the court or contact his counsel during the winter vacation and only learned of the dismissal in March 2025. He then promptly applied for a copy of the order and filed for a revision, citing circumstances beyond his control as the reason for the delay.
However, the court found no merit in his reasoning, emphasizing that Section 64 of the Cr.P.C. considers summons served upon an adult male family member residing with the applicant as valid service. Justice Kainthla stressed that the applicant cannot claim non-communication of the hearing date by such a family member as grounds for condonation of delay. Accepting this plea would undermine the statutory provision that equates service on an adult male family member with personal service on the applicant.
Furthermore, the court noted Kishori Lal’s failure to inquire about his case status between December 12, 2024, and March 2025, thereby not establishing sufficient cause for the delay. The court dismissed the judgments cited by the applicant’s counsel, Ms. Anu Tuli, as irrelevant to the case at hand since they pertained to different sections of the Cr.P.C.
Ms. Preetika Thakur, counsel for the respondent, argued that the applicant was duly served and had no reasonable cause for non-appearance, supporting the dismissal of the complaint. The court agreed with her submissions, highlighting that the applicant’s absence was due to his own actions, and one cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, along with the proposed revision petition, due to it being barred by limitation, thereby closing the case.
Bottom Line:
Summons served upon an adult male member of the family residing with the applicant is deemed as personal service upon the applicant under Section 64 of Cr.P.C. Applicant cannot claim non-communication of the hearing date by such family member as a ground for condonation of delay.
Statutory provision(s): Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Limitation Act, 1963
Kishori Lal v. Surender Kumar, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857255
