JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Cr. MP (M) No. 1432 of 2016. 1. By way of this application, applicant has prayed for condonation of 61 days delay in filing the revision petition. The reasoning given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application is reproduced herein below:- "That in the present case the appeal before the Ld. Appellate Court below was heard on 23.6.2016 at Baijnath and since the order was not announced on the said date, therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was under bona fide impression that the order will be announced on some other date which may be fixed by the ld. Appellate Court, however, recently the petitioner received notice from the ld. Trial court whereby he is being called upon to appear before the ld. Trial Court on 2.12.2016 and it was then that the applicant/petitioner came to know that the appeal filed by him already stands dismissed, thereafter the applicant/petitioner rushed to the Ld. First Appellate Court and obtained a certified copy of the judgment dated 23.6.2016. The present appeal is barred by 56 days. The delay in filing the present appeal is neither wilful nor intentional rather it is beyond the control of the present petitioner." 2. In order to ascertain the veracity of the averments so made in the application, this Court had called for the records of the learned appellate Court and a perusal of the same demonstrate that on 23.6.2016 the following order was passed by learned appellate Court:- "23.06.2016 Present-Sh. Ajay Awasthi, Advocate for appellant. Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate for respondent. Taken up today for effective hearing vide separate office order. Vide my separate judgment of even date, appeal of the appellant is dismissed. File complete in all respects be consigned to record room whereas the record of the ld. trial court be sent back along with the copy of judgment." 3. From the perusal of the record of learned appellate Court it is apparent that the averments which have been made in the application praying for condonation of delay on affidavit, filed by the applicant/petitioner, are totally incorrect and misleading. The applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. From the perusal of the record of learned appellate Court it is apparent that the averments which have been made in the application praying for condonation of delay on affidavit, filed by the applicant/petitioner, are totally incorrect and misleading. The applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. A perusal of the records of the learned appellate Court demonstrates that order dated 23.6.2016 was passed in the presence of both learned counsel representing the respective parties. 4. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Sriniwas Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249 that "So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer not litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else." 5. It is well settled law that Rules of procedure are handmaiden to the ends of justice and should not be permitted to affect substantial justice. However, it is also well settled law that if applicant fails to give reasonable and satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay then the High Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion to condone the delay in making the application. No indulgence can be shown to a litigant who levels allegations against the Court and Presiding Officer of a Court of law. In view of above, it cannot be said that the applicant was able to demonstrate "sufficient cause so as to condone the delay in filing the revision petition". Application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the records of the case to the learned trial Court forthwith so that the order passed by learned trial Court can be executed without any delay.