Partly allowed

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. v. Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2008WP/502/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition quashing the Sessions Court order that dismissed a revision application as time-barred. The High Court found procedural failure in not admitting the condonation of delay application first and set aside the order, directing disposal of the condonation application before deciding the revision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order are quashed; the condonation of delay application must be registered and disposed of expediently before deciding the revision application;

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. Vs Prabhakar… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502 OF 2008

¶4

Mr.Pentappa Erappa Gaddam & Ors... Petitioners
Vs.

¶5

Mr.Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul & Ors... Respondents

¶6

Mr.S.U.Dhakephalkar for the Petitioners.
Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Respondent No.1.
Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶8

DATE : 04th August 2008.

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

.Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners,
the learned advocate for the 1st respondent and learned
A.P.P for the State. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is taken up
for final disposal at admission stage.

¶11

2.The petitioners filedCriminal Revision
Application No.26 of 2007 before the Court of the
learned Sessions Judge at Solapur for challenging an
order passed by learned Magistrate of issuing process on
a complaint filed by the 1st respondent. Perusal of the
record of the Criminal Revision Application received by

¶12

this Court shows that alongwith the revision
application, the petitioners applied for stay. On stay

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

application at Exhibit 4, the learned Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge issued notice on 12th February 2007 and
granted ad-interim stay. It appears that the 1st
respondent appeared in the revision application and
pointed out that order of stay has been passed though
the revision application was barred by limitation. By
order dated 09th March 2007, on the aforesaid ground,
the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge vacated the
order of stay. The record further shows that an
application at Exhibit 12 was filed by the applicants
for condonation of delay. There are the orders passed
by the learned Sessions Judge on the said application.
The order dated 05th December 2007 passed on the said
application directs the registry to register the said
application and to follow the procedure.

¶15

3.By the judgment and order dated 05th December
2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
the revision application was dismissed on the ground
that the same was time barred.

¶16

4.After having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and after perusing the record, I find
that on 05th December 2007 itself the learned Judge had
directed the registration of the application for

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

condonation of delay. On the basis of the said order,
the application for condonation of delay ought to have
been registered. After disposing of the application for
condonation of delay, the learned Sessions Judge could
have passed appropriate order on revision application.
However, the learned Judge rejected the revision
application on the same day by holding that the same was
barred by limitation. Hence, the impugned order will
have to be set aside and direction will have to be
issued to dispose of the application for condonation of
delay.

¶19

5.Hence, I pass the following order:

¶20

(i)The impugned judgment and order passed by the
Sessions Court in the Criminal Revision
Application No.26 of 2007 is quashed and set
aside. The Revision Application is restored
to the file.

¶21

(ii)The application for condonation of delay filed
by the petitioners shall be registered. The
said application shall be disposed of
expeditiously in accordance with law. Only
after the said application is disposed of, the

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

learned Sessions Judge will pass appropriate
order on Criminal Revision Application.

¶24

(iii)The applicants and 1st respondent are directed
to appear before the learned Sessions Judge at
Solapur on 26th August 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The
parties will appear for fixing the schedule of
hearing of application for condonation of
delay.

¶25

(iv)The learned Sessions Judge may himself take up
the application for condonation of delay for
hearing or may transfer it to any other court
as per his administrative convenience.

¶26

(v)The application for condonation of delay shall
be disposed of as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of appearance fixed as above. For a
period of 10 weeks from today, the ad-interim
relief granted by this Court shall continue to
operate. The application for condonation of
delay and the revision application will be
decided without being influenced by grant of
ad-interim relief by this Court.

¶27

: 5 :

¶28

(vi) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs.

¶29

(vii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.

¶30

(viii) Parties and concerned Court will act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(ix) Record and Proceeding to be sent back forthwith.

¶32

(A.S.Oka,J)

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. v. Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. v. Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramesh v. Pai . Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another .

Dr.Gangadhar Narayan Joglekar Vs Dr.Sharad Purushottam Pathak and Anr.

Kishore Hariram Thakkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Iqbal Harun Dalla . Vs Smt. Tabassum Abdul Sattar and Anr. .

Ashok Gangwani Vs Michael Poshan Furtado and Ors.

Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.