The dismissal of main revision applications renders challenges to delay condonation orders moot, making them infructuous.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Saiyed, learned advocate on behalf of Mr Z.L. Khan, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No.2.

2. Pursuant to order dated 20.3.2025, it has been informed by Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 that the revision applications being Criminal Revision Application Nos. 235 of 2016 and 236 of 2016 are dismissed by way of an order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

3. The issue pertains to an application filed by the present revision applicants for the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat. It was the case of revision applicant that the opponent Nos. 4 and 5 had scrupulously transferred the land in favour of opponent Nos. 2 and 6 and they were disturbing the possession of the revision-applicant and they had moved an application to the Police for protection of possession and ultimately requested the Police by filing Case No.5/2007 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Pursuant to the application under Section 145, the Additional Executive Magistrate, Surat City passed an order dated 13.2.2009, which was the reason for challenge by opponent No.2 by preferring Criminal Revision Application No. 185 of 2009, wherein this Court remanded the matter by way of order dated 8.2.2010.

5. Pursuant to the remand made by this Court, notices were issued by the Executive Magistrate in Court Case No. 5 of 2007 and decided the Court Case No.5 of 2007 by way of order dated 27.5.2011, which culminated in filing of two revision applications being Criminal Revision Application Nos. 235 of 2016 and 236 of 2016. However, while preferring both the revision applications, there was a delay in filing the applications and, therefore, application for condonation of delay came to be filed being Delay Application No. 69 of 2014 as well as Delay Application No. 3231 of 2014. The delay condonation applications came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by orders passed in delay condonation applications, revision applications are preferred by the revision applicants.

6. Today, it has been informed by Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 that both the revision applications are decided on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and they are dismissed by way of order dated 26.12.2022. This fact could not be denied by the learned advocate for the applicant.

7. In view of the disposal of the Criminal Revision Applications, the present revision application challenging the original order of condonation of delay would be rendered infructuous.

8. In view of the said factual averment, both the revision applications are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Rule discharged.