The single judge allowed an application for condonation of delay. The court held that the reasons provided by the applicant constituted sufficient cause for the 75-day delay.
The application for condonation of delay was allowed; delay in filing Revision Application is condoned.
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.
903.2.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2016 in
REVISION APPLICATION (St) NO.2 of 2016
Santosh Kumar Mishra .… Applicant V/s. Parmeshwar Tiwari & ors …. Respondents
Applicant appearing in person Mr.A.R.Kapadnis APP for State
CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.
DATE : 27 JANUARY 2017
P.C. :
Heard the Applicant who is appearing in person. None for respondent nos.1 to 3 though office noting shows that Mr.A.R.Dubey Advocate is appearing for them and that he has filed vakalatnama on their behalf.
Heard the learned APP appearing for respondent no.4. Perused the
averments made by the Applicant in his Application for seeking
1/2
903.2.16.doc
condonation of delay. Application is on affidavit. The delay is properly explained. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay in my opinion, constitutes sufficient cause. In this view of the matter, following order is passed:
(i) Application is allowed.
(A.M.Badar, J)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay for seven and a half months in filing a Revision Application is permissible.
Santosh Kumar Mishra
Parmeshwar Tiwari & ors
A.M.Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
