Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Vijay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial applications filed and required interventions. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. delay in filing revision application and challenges made. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. time granted for supplementary affidavit filing. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. similar delay in filing another revision application. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's order to list cases on a specific date. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 9879 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1310 of 2023
1.Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1233 days in filing the revision application.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an application was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance but during the pendency of the said application the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected which constrained him to file a separate application for amending the prayer portion made in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application 12.10.2023 the pre
The court allows extensive delay in filing revision applications under extenuating circumstances, emphasizing the need for timely procedural amendments.
The sufficiency of cause for condoning extensive delay must be adequately demonstrated, with reliance on established legal precedents.
Delay in filing civil revisions can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach.
Revision – Condonation of delay – Delay of 98 days – Condoned
The court should consider the reasons for the delay in filing an appeal and dispose of the application to condone the delay on its merits.
Condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act requires plausible, substantiated explanation; vague pleas of counsel non-intimation, unsubstantiated by affidavits or details despite objections, ....
“Delay allegedly caused by previous counsel who failed to communicate impugned order a State Commission to petitioner found not satisfactory.”
Genuine reasons for condonation of delay are crucial, and lack of documentary evidence for health and financial issues may lead to dismissal of the petition.
The decision reaffirmed the principle that a party cannot claim ignorance of a court's decision when evidence indicates knowledge, especially in delay applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
