Allowed

Shantibhai N Gohil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Nov 2019WP/2023/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges an order rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing a revision application. The court held that the delay was not deliberate or malafide and quashed the impugned order, allowing the petition and condoning the delay subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3rd January, 2018, is quashed and set aside. The delay in filing the revision application is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 2 within thre

Shantibhai N Gohil and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

5-wp.2023.2018.doc

1/5

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2023 OF 2018

¶6

Shantibhai N. Gohil and Anr. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Manoj Harit a/w Mr.Akhil Kupade, i/b Manoj Harit & Co., for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. P. H. Gaikwad-Patil A.P.P for the Respondent No.1 - State.

¶9

Mr.S.H.Chari, for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

PSI – N.B. Jadhav, Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶12

DATE : 8^th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of

¶16

the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1–State. Mr.Chari, waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶17

By this Petition, the Petitioners have impugned the order dated 3^rd January, 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶18

5-wp.2023.2018.doc

¶19

2/5

¶20

City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, below Miscellaneous Application No.1969 of 2017 (for delay condonation) in Revision Application No…. of 2017, by which the petitioners delay condonation application was rejected.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the petitioners have given detailed explanation in the delay condonation application, thereby setting out the reasons for delay in filing the Revision Application. He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ought to have considered the explanation offered by the petitioners and condoned the delay of 109 days.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submitted that no interference was warranted in the impugned order. He further submitted that the advocate had obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 17^th June, 2017, despite the same, there was delay in filing the Revision Application. He submitted that the original advocate appearing for the petitioners had also handed over all the papers concerning the case of the petitioners and as such the Revision Application ought to have been filed within 90 days.

¶23

5-wp.2023.2018.doc

¶24

3/5

¶25

Perused the papers. It appears that the Respondent No.2 (Original Complainant) had filed an application being Exhibit – 31 for further investigation. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40^th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, vide order dated 12^th April, 2017, allowed the said application (Exhibit – 31) preferred by the Respondent No.2 and directed the Office-in-Charge of the Gamdevi Police to further investigate the crime. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12^th April, 2017, passed below Exhibit – 31, the petitioners preferred a Revision Application alongwith a Miscellaneous Application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 3^rd January, 2018, rejected the Miscellaneous Application filed for condonation of delay caused in filing the aforesaid Revision Application and refused to condone the delay caused in filing the Revision Application. Hence, this Petition.

¶26

A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioners have been represented earlier by another advocate. It also appears that the earlier advocate had applied for a certified copy of the impugned order dated 12^th April, 2017, on 16^th June, 2017, which was received on 17^th June, 2017. It also appears that thereafter after obtaining the NOC from the earlier advocate, the petitioners approached the present advocate on record, after which, a new advocate applied for the Roznama on 15^th September, 2017,

¶27

5-wp.2023.2018.doc

¶28

4/5

¶29

which was received on 16^th September, 2017. Pursuant thereto, the aforesaid Revision Application was filed. The delay caused in filing the Revision Application cannot be said to be either deliberate or malafide. The petitioners had offered an explanation for filing the Revision Application belatedly. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay condonation application ought to have been allowed and delay of 109 days caused in filing the Revision Application, ought to have been condoned.

¶30

Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3^rd January, 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, below Miscellaneous Application No.1969 of 2017 (for delay condonation) in Revision Application No…. of 2017, rejecting the said application, is quashed and set aside.

¶31

The delay caused in filing the Revision Application is condoned, subject to the petitioners paying the Respondent No.2, costs of Rs.10,000/-, within three weeks from today. On showing payment of costs, the Revision Application be restored back to its original file and be numbered. The learned Judge to decide the said Revision Application expeditiously.

¶32

5-wp.2023.2018.doc

¶33

5/5

¶34

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶35

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Shantibhai N Gohil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantibhai N Gohil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sanjay Bhaskar Zope Vs Sadguru Sakharam Maharaj Vitthal Rukmini Sanstha and Ors.

Ujiyare Lal Dohare Vs M/S. Astra Container Line Private Limited and Anr.

Baskaran Kesavareddiyar Vs M/S. Astra Container Line Private Limited and Anr.

Sanjay S/O. Omprakash Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Nenshi Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Durga Rupraj Naidu Vs Ankur Vishal Naidu and Ors.