Full Text
Translation output
V
$23 -32/34-40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4553/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no.18171/2017
SANJEEV NARULA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Roheania, Adv.
$23 -32/34-40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4553/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no.18171/2017
SANJEEV NARULA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Roheania, Adv.
VERSUS
M/S WOODCRAFT FURNISHERS Respondent
Through Mr. Vikas Nagwan, Adv. AND
Through Mr. Vikas Nagwan, Adv. AND
CRL.M.C. 4557/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no.18183/2017
M.A. no.18183/2017
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 4558/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no.18185/2017
M.A. no.18185/2017
VERSUS
2018:DHC:8383 AND CRL.M.C. 4787/20 17 & Cr!. M.A. nos.19080-8l/2Ol7
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4788/20 17 & Cr1. M.A. nos.19083-84/2017
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4789/2017 & Cr!. M.A. nos.19085-86/2Ol7
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 4917/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no. 19540/2017
M.A. no. 19540/2017
VERSUS
AND.. CRL.M.C. 4929/20 17 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 19569/20 17
M.A. no. 19569/20 17
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 4930/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no. 19572/2017
M.A. no. 19572/2017
VERSUS
.:
AND
CRL.M.C. 493 1/2017 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 19575/2017
SANJEEV NARULA
Through Petitioner Mr. Ashish Roheania, Adv.
AND
CRL.M.C. 493 1/2017 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 19575/2017
SANJEEV NARULA
Through Petitioner Mr. Ashish Roheania, Adv.
VERSUS
MIS WOODCRAFT FURNISHERS Respondent AND CRL.M.C. 538 1/2017 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 2 1023/2017
Through
M.A. no. 2 1023/2017
Through
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 5382/2017 & Cr1. M.A. nos. 21025-26/2017
Through
Through
VERSUS
q ME
CRL.M.C. 5383/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no. 21027/2017
Through
M.A. no. 21027/2017
Through
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 5384/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no. 21029/2017
Through
M.A. no. 21029/2017
Through
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 5385/2017 & Cr!.
M.A. no. 2103 1/2017
Through
M.A. no. 2103 1/2017
Through
VERSUS
2' FEW
CRL.M.C. 5386/2017 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 21033/2017
Through
M.A. no. 21033/2017
Through
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 5387/2017 & Cr1.
M.A. no. 21035/2017
Through
M.A. no. 21035/2017
Through
VERSUS
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
21.03.2018 Petitioner assailed the summoning order dated February, 2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by filing a
Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. There was delay of about 220
K days in filing the Revision Petition An application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act", for short) was filed by the petitioner.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application under Section
5 of the Act. Consequently, Revision Petition was also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Plea taken by the petitioner before the Revisional Court was that counsel representing the petitioner was shifting the office; therefore, it took time for filing the revision. It is concluded that learned counsel remained busy and concerned file escaped his notice. It is contended that endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter on merits instead of technicalities.
Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of lawyer.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no objection in case delay is condoned, subject to costs. Accordingly, without going into the sufficiency of cause furnished by the petitioner for the delay, impugned order is set aside and Revision
Petition is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Revisional Court for disposing of the same on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the learned counsels for the parties, subject to costs of1O,OOO/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent.
Parties shall appear before the Revisional Court/Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, West District on 17th April, 2018.
All the above petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous.
61-1 A.K. PATHAK, J.
MARCH 219 2018 r. bararia
21.03.2018 Petitioner assailed the summoning order dated February, 2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by filing a
Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. There was delay of about 220
K days in filing the Revision Petition An application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act", for short) was filed by the petitioner.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application under Section
5 of the Act. Consequently, Revision Petition was also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Plea taken by the petitioner before the Revisional Court was that counsel representing the petitioner was shifting the office; therefore, it took time for filing the revision. It is concluded that learned counsel remained busy and concerned file escaped his notice. It is contended that endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter on merits instead of technicalities.
Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of lawyer.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no objection in case delay is condoned, subject to costs. Accordingly, without going into the sufficiency of cause furnished by the petitioner for the delay, impugned order is set aside and Revision
Petition is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Revisional Court for disposing of the same on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the learned counsels for the parties, subject to costs of1O,OOO/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent.
Parties shall appear before the Revisional Court/Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, West District on 17th April, 2018.
All the above petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Miscellaneous applications disposed of as infructuous.
61-1 A.K. PATHAK, J.
MARCH 219 2018 r. bararia
JUDGMENT