Allowed

Purnima Soni and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2022WP/53/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's rejection of a condonation of delay application. The writ petitioners sought to set aside an order refusing to condone a 144-day delay in filing a revision regarding defamation charges. The Court condoned the delay based on ill-health grounds and restored the revision application for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting condonation of delay was set aside; delay condoned; revision application restored; hearing of revision expedited within three months.

Purnima Soni and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 of 3 29.WP.53.2017.stm.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2017

¶4

Purnima Soni and anotherPetitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.Sandeep Kumar Singh, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr.Mehul Hartalkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for State.

¶9

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE :13th June 2022

¶10

PC :

¶11

1.The petitioners had preferred revision application before the
Court of Sessions challenging the order issuing process dated 21st
July 2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court,
Andheri, Mumbai for the offence u/s.499, 500 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2.There was delay in preferring revision application and the
petitioners had moved the Miscellaneous Application No.1956 of
2016 for condonation of delay. The delay was around 144 days.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay vide order
dated 4th October 2016 rejected the application for condonation of
delay.

¶13

MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESH SURESH THATTE THATTE Date: 2022.08.2516:36:28 +0530

¶14

3.Learned advocate for petitioners submitted that sufficient
cause was shown to condone the delay. The ground of ill-health was
enumerated in the application for condonation of delay. Learned
Sessions Judge ought to have condoned the delay in the interest of

¶15

Corrected version of order dated 13-6-2022, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 17-8-2022

¶16

2 of 3 29.WP.53.2017.stm.doc

¶17

justice by allowing petitioners’ to contest the revision application on
merits.

¶18

4.Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that
application for condonation of delay was silent about cause for delay.
Vague averments were reflected in the application. There was delay
of 144 days. The petitioners are trying to prolong the proceedings
before Trial Court. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the
application for condonation of delay. Medical documents were not
supporting the averments in the application.

¶19

5.I have perused the application for condonation of delay and
the impugned order dated 4th October 2016. The petitioners were
aggrieved by order of process. In the application for condonation of
delay it was stated that petitioner no.1 came to know that complaint
has been filed in December-2015. Petitioner no.1 could not
approach the Court as she was not well and suffering from illness
and doctor advised her to take bed rest. The petitioners are relying
on the case papers which are annexed to this petition. Apparently
medical papers were not part of application before Sessions Court.
While deciding application for condonation of delay, the Court is
required to take into consideration the fact that as far as possible the
parties be permitted to contest the matter on merits. In the interest
of justice, the delay ought to have been condoned by the Sessions
Court. The applicant had in brief a attributed illness for delay.

¶20

6.Hence, I pass following order :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i)The order dated 4th October 2016 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in

¶23

Corrected version of order dated 13-6-2022, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 17-8-2022

¶24

3 of 3 29.WP.53.2017.stm.doc

¶25

Miscellaneous Application No.1956 of 2016 is set aside;

¶26

(ii) Delay in preferring Revision Application by petitioners is condoned;

¶27

(iii) Revision Application preferred by petitioners is restored to file;

¶28

(iv)Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall hear Revision
Application preferred by petitioners on merits;

¶29

(v) Hearing of Revision Application No.955 of 2015 is expedited and Sessions Court is requested to dispose of said application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶30

(vi) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 11^th July 2022;

¶31

(vii) The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶33

MST

¶34

Corrected version of order dated 13-6-2022, pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 17-8-2022

Purnima Soni and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Soni 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod G. Nair Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Pandurang Sahare Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradip Sudhakar Gutte Vs The State of Maharashtra

Zarina Asif Shaikh and Anr. Vs Aslam Haji Abdul Ahad Amir Bukhari and Ors.

Harji Somji Patel Vs Sameer Amirhamja Bagwan and Anr.

Ajay Pandurang Phale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.