Bombay High CourtAPL/585/2015dismissed

M/S Bhagyaprapa Services, Through Its Proprietor Pravin Shashikant Godbole v. M/S Renuka Agencies, Proprietor Shri Neetin Sureshrao Kokardekar

2016-03-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 apl585.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.585 OF 2015 (M/s. Bhagyaprapa Services, through its proprietor Pravin Shashikant Godbole ..vs.. M/s. Renuka Agencies, Proprietor Shri Neetin Sureshrao Kokardekar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 08-03-2016 This application is filed on 25-08-2015. It was listed before the Court on 28-10-2015 for non removal of office objections and the Court granted two weeks time to remove the office objections. The office objections were not removed and the application was listed before the Court on 09-12-2015, on which date four weeks time was granted to remove the office objections. Again office objections were not removed and by the order dated 11-01-2016 the Court granted four weeks time to remove the office objections. The matter was again listed and by the order dated 16-02-2016 the Court granted two weeks' time to remove the office objections. The office objections are not removed.

None appears for the applicant.

The applicant filed revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the order directing issuance of process. As there was delay of about 604 days in

2 apl585.15 filing the revision application, an application praying for condonation of delay was filed. The application praying for condonation of delay is rejected by the Sessions Court by the following order :

"Applicant called several times absent. No steps taken to argue on condonation of delay application. Previous date also absent. Since long counsel and applicant both absent, hence this condonation of delay application stands dismissed in default."

Apart from the conduct of the applicant, I find that the applicant has not been able to show sufficient cause on the basis of which the inordinate delay of 604 days in filing the revision application can be condoned. The application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by the applicant with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within one month.

JUDGE pma