LALIT Vs. SUNIL JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 170 days in filing the revision petition. The Petitioner has explained the delay in para 2 of the application moved for condonation of delay, which is reproduced, as follows:-

(2.) As a matter of fact, there is a delay of 170 days as per the report submitted by the Registry. There is huge delay in filing the present revision petition and day-to-day delay has not been explained. There is no plea or evidence that the petitioner had visited the office of his counsel, Sh. Parag Kale to post himself about the next date of hearing. The car of the Advocate was stolen on 04.08.2013, but he sent the information on 12.09.2013. The revision petition was filed on 27.01.2014, knowing well that the case was going to be barred by limitation. The file can be reconstructed, within a week. The duty of the Advocate is to inspect the record and he can file even true copies of the record, for the time being. Everyday, the Advocates pray for permission to file the certified copies after some period. That request is always allowed. There is no cogent or

(3.) The law has a crystalline clarity. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view. (1) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 (2) R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari,2009 1 CutLT 188 (3) Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 (4) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221.