Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
K.L. WADANE, J.
Mr. Anthony Johnson – Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Kavita Glory – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.117 OF 2015
Decided On : 15/10/2015.
Mr. Ganesh R.Naik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. E.P. Heredia, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Ms. M. Pinto, APP for the respondent no.2.
Inadvertent mistakes by advocates can be considered as valid grounds to set aside orders, as demonstrated in this case.
Headnote:
Inadvertent Mistake - Criminal Writ Petition - The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay, citing the inadvertent mistake committed by the advocate as a good ground to set aside the order under challenge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a hawaldar in the Indian Army, filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner and his advocate were absent on the scheduled date, and the advocate had inadvertently mentioned the wrong date in his diary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inadvertent mistake committed by the advocate was a good ground to set aside the order under challenge. The writ petition was allowed, and the order was set aside, restoring the petition for condonation of delay to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji.
Issues: The issues involved the absence of the petitioner and his advocate on the scheduled date, the inadvertent mistake in the advocate's diary, and the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inadvertent mistake committed by the advocate, which was considered a valid reason to set aside the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, was set aside, and the petition for condonation of delay was restored to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, with the direction for disposal of the application in accordance with the law.
Heard Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. Heredia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Pinto, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties waive notice.
3. This is a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji on 13.4.2015 by which the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay has been dismissed in default. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Brief facts of the case may be stated as under:-
The petitioner no.1 is working as Hawaldar in the Indian Army. The petitioner no.2 is the Senior Citizen and resides out of Goa. The respondent no.1 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner no.1. The respondent no.1 filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. That petition is partly allowed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge along with application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, as the petitioner and his Advocate were absent on 13.4.2015, and on the ground that several opportunities were given to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Advocate has not informed the date in the matter and their Advocate inadvertently mentioned the date in his diary is 27th April,2015 instead of 13th April, 2015. The ground/contention raised by the petitioners is supported by the affidavit of the Advocate of the petitioners, who represented the petitioners in the Sessions Court. Copy of the relevant extract of diary is also produced on record.
5. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Advocate, the petitioners and their Advocate were unable to attend the Court and this is a good ground to set aside the order under challenge.
6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, is hereby set aside and the petition for condonation of delay is restored to the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, subject to the costs of Rs. 2000/-to be paid to the respondent no.1. The parties are directed to remain present before the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji on 3rd November, 2015 at 10.30 a.m. and the learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the application in accordance with law.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
