Allowed

C.Dhanamjaya Naidu v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC21 Jul 2011CRLRC/37/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case, setting aside the impugned order that dismissed the condonation of a 122-day delay. The court held the petitioner not responsible for the delay caused by the previous counsel's misplacement of the file.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the condonation of 122-day delay is granted.

C.Dhanamjaya Naidu Vs The State of A.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.37 OF 2011

¶2

DATED:21.07.2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 04.02.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein to condone the delay of 122 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Petition, was dismissed.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared and no representation is made on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

¶6

3. Petitioner herein filed private complaint in C.F.No.3655 of 2006 before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore against the respondents and after enquiry, the said complaint was dismissed on 10.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, however with a delay of 122 days. Seeking condonotation of the said delay, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2007. According to the petitioner, the file was misplaced by his previous counsel and mixed up with the other files and in spite of best efforts the file could not be traced readily and ultimately, it was traced only on 24.06.2007.

¶7

4. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, also petitioner has explained the reasons for the delay by stating that the file was misplaced by the previous counsel. For the lapse, if any, on the part of the counsel for the misplacement or mixing up of the files, petitioner cannot be penalized. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, and in view of the fact that the petitioner is not responsible for the delay that has occasioned on account of the missing or misplacement of the file in his counsel’s office, it is held that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have the Revision Petition disposed of on its merits. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently the delay of 122 days in filing the Revision Petition stands condoned and Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2007 stands allowed.

¶8

5. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed as stated above.

¶9

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶10

21^st July, 2011. Tsy

C.Dhanamjaya Naidu v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Dhanamjaya Naidu v. The State of A.P.

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

Mohd. Arshad Ali Khan Vs Smt. Khatiya Begum

Betappa Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Merneedi Veerraju Vs Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

Gunji Yedukondalu Vs Gunji Krishnaveni

SMt. Mandavilli Santha Kumari Vs Nallamilli Ramakrishna Reddy

K.N.Ravinder Vs K.N.Rajakumar