RAJESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. On a reading of the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur, it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the party i.e. the present petitioner, who was also the applicant before the Sessions Court in Revision, ought to have applied for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, dismissed the revision application by holding that it is barred by limitation.

(2.) It is not seriously disputed before me that this view of the learned Sessions Judge was proper, and that, the dismissal of the revision application holding that it was barred by limitation, cannot be faulted with.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P., it appears proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a fresh revision application, praying for condonation of delay in filing the same, and that, on such an application being made within a period of two weeks from today, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same on merits and decide it in accordance with law. Needless to say that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting various proceedings before the various forums shall be taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the question of condonation of delay.