Criminal revision dismissed for lack of appearance by the revisionist who failed to press the application for condonation of delay, rendering the matter disposed of by default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 314 of 2001
Revisionist :- Sri Jamadar Singh Shakya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V.C. Katiyar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. Learned A.G.A. representing the opposite party no.1 is present.
The present criminal revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present criminal revision was filed alongwith the memo of revision.
As no one appears on behalf of the applicant/revisionist to press the delay condonation application, the same is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.
Since the delay condonation application has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present criminal revision is also dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 YK
Sri Jamadar Singh Shakya
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
