IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Vijay Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India through CBI - Opposite Party
Cr. Revision No. 1310 of 2023 With Cr. Revision No. 1312 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2025
| 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 present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application.
4. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit.
I.A. No. 9880 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1312 of 2023
5. Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party.
6. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1234 days in filing the revision application.
7. 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 W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application was kept pending and on 05.05.2023 W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application.
8. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit.
9. Let both these cases be listed on 24th January, 2025.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.