SURENDRA MISHRA AND ORS. Vs. JUDHISTIR PANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for determination in this case is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, Puri was justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the Petitioners (Criminal Revision No. 239 of 1989) in limine on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the members of the second party in the proceeding initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the opposite party, the first party therein. The proceeding was disposed of by the order passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 25 -4 -1989 declaring that the first party was in possession of the case and on the date of the preliminary order. Against the said order the Petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 239 of 1989 on 28 -9 -1989. The revision petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the case. The explanation offered for the delay was that the Petitioner No. 3 Upendra Mishra, who was looking after the case was ill with hypertension associated with vertigo and was bed -ridden from 10 -12 -1988 to 7 -9 -1989. After he recovered the Petitioners took information about the proceeding, applied for a certified copy of the impugned order, obtained the same on 28 -9 -1989 and filed the revision petition on 28 -9 -1989. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order.

(3.) SRI Deepak Mishra appearing for the Petitioners contends that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in the matter is palpably erroneous inasmuch as the position is now well settled that Courts are to take a lenient view in the matter of condoning delay in filling appeal/revision. The erroneous approach has vitiated the impugned order passed.