Mukesh Saini Vs Sachin Saini

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 858/2024 & CRL.M.A. 3440/2024 MUKESH SAINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paripoorn Singh, Mr. Rohan Aggarwal and Ms. Esha Thakur, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

SACHIN SAINI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jatin Chaudhary, Advocate (through VC)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 17.07.2026

¶10

The point involved in the present petition is a very short one.

¶11

Shri Sachin Saini (respondent herein) had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and during the pendency of the abovesaid complaint, he moved an application before the learned Trial Court for seeking interim compensation under section 143(A) of NI Act.

¶12

3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the abovesaid application and, resultantly, complainant filed a Revision Petition before the learned Court of Sessions.

¶13

Admittedly, such Revision Petition was not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days and while filing the same, the revisionist i.e. complainant, also filed an application seeking condonation of delay.

¶14

It seems that the abovesaid aspect was not brought to the knowledge of the learned Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court vide order

¶15

CRL.M.C. 858/2024

¶16

1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 11:02:08

¶19

dated 10.01.2024 allowed the Revision Petition and directed the accused (petitioner herein) to pay compensation.

¶20

The abovesaid order has now been challenged by the accused.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant does acknowledge the fact that such Revision Petition was not filed within the stipulated time and he had also filed an application seeking condonation of delay.

¶22

The record of the Revisional Court has also been produced which indicates that when the Revision Petition was taken up by the learned Revisional Court on 10.01.2024, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent and the Court, after hearing the arguments of the revisionist, allowed the revision.

¶23

After the passing of the abovesaid order, learned counsel for complainant did appear before the learned Revisional Court and apprised that the revision was not filed within the time and that such aspect had not been highlighted by the revisionist and, therefore, the Revision Petition could not have been allowed.

¶24

The learned Revisional Court, though, found merit in such submission but since it had already disposed of the petition and had become functus-officio, it could not pass any further order and, thus, asked the respondent to avail remedy, as available under law.

¶25

During course of the arguments, when asked, both the sides submitted that they would have no objection if the Revisional Court is directed to decided the revision afresh, and to also consider the abovesaid application seeking condonation of delay.

¶26

Keeping in mind, the overall facts of the case and the fact that an application, seeking condonation of delay, had also been filed which

¶27

CRL.M.C. 858/2024

¶28

2

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 11:02:08

¶31

somehow escaped the notice of the Revisional Court, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the parties would appear before the learned Revisional Court/Successor Court on 10.08.2026 at 02:00 PM and such Court shall hear arguments on said application and revision afresh and would dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

¶32

Such disposal would be without being influenced by any observation appearing in the present order.

¶33

Resultantly, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 is also set aside and Revision Petition in question i.e. Cr. No. 545/2023 stands revived. 15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶34

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶35

JULY 17, 2026/ nr/sa

¶36

CRL.M.C. 858/2024

¶37

3

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/07/2026 at 11:02:08

Mukesh Saini v. Sachin Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Saini v. Sachin Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh Alias Aditya Vs State NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps Najafgarh

Viresh @ Alok Vs State NCT of Delhi

Amit Goel & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Arvind Dalal Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Alok through Pairokar Abhilash Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Surinder Kumar Seth & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.