High Court allowed an application to restore a revision application earlier rejected due to service difficulties, finding the explanation sufficient for delay condonation.
Present criminal application allowed; application No. 193 of 2010 restored to file for notice to respondent.
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.
-: 1 :-
appr-256/11
srp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 256 OF 2011
IN
CRIM. APPL. NO. 193 OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. [ST.] NO. 333 OF 2010
Vidya S. Mahajan & Anr. Versus Saharad Bhagwat Mahajan & Anr.
..Applicants.
..Respondents.
Mr. Deval K. Anja i/b U. P. Warunjikar for the Applicants. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the State.
Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011 .
P. C. :
-: 2 :-
appr-256/11
presence of respondent no.1 for the disposal of present application is not necessary as the earlier application was disposed of before the appearance could be put up by respondent no.1. In view of above facts and circumstances, in my view, the interest of justice will be sub-served if the delay condonation application is restored to the file.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Application No. 193 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing revision should be restored to file.
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
