RAMDEEN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shashank Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record. No counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

(2.) As per the report of the Stamp Reporter of this Court, this revision is barred by limitation and has been filed with delay of 1088 days.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits the present application has been filed with prayer to condone the delay in filing the present revision. He further submits that the revisionist immediately filed an objection but he became ill and was not in contact with his counsel and thereafter, when he came to know that an ex-parte order had been passed by learned court below, immediately a recall application was filed and then the Covid-19 outbreak happened, thereafter, he was informed that his case has been dismissed. He further submits that when the revisionist received a recovery certificate, then he contacted a new counsel and he came to know about the impugned order. He further submits that due to aforementioned reasons, the delay in filing this revision is not intentional or deliberate, thus, the present application may be allowed. He further submits that impugned order dtd. 15/6/2018 under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Family Judge FTC New, Gonda to pay the maintenance of amount of Rs.2000.00 per month from the date of application filed by the opposite party No.2 is illegal and passed without application of mind, thus, it is liable to be set aside and reversed.