IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502 OF 2008 Mr.Pentappa Erappa Gaddam & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.U.Dhakephalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th August 2008. JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for the 1st respondent and learned A.P.P for the State. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No.26 of 2007 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge at Solapur for challenging an order passed by learned Magistrate of issuing process on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent. Perusal of the record of the Criminal Revision Application received by this Court shows that alongwith the revision application, the petitioners applied for stay. On stay : 2 : application at Exhibit 4, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge issued notice on 12th February 2007 and granted ad-interim stay. It appears that the 1st respondent appeared in the revision application and pointed out that order of stay has been passed though the revision application was barred by limitation. By order dated 09th March 2007, on the aforesaid ground, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge vacated the order of stay. The record further shows that an application at Exhibit 12 was filed by the applicants for condonation of delay. There are the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the said application. The order dated 05th December 2007 passed on the said application directs the registry to register the said application and to follow the procedure. 3. By the judgment and order dated 05th December 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the revision application was dismissed on the ground that the same was time barred. 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record, I find that on 05th December 2007 itself the learned Judge had directed the registration of the application for : 3 : condonation of delay. On the basis of the said order, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been registered. After disposing of the application for condonation of delay, the learned Sessions Judge could have passed appropriate order on revision application. However, the learned Judge rejected the revision application on the same day by holding that the same was barred by limitation. Hence, the impugned order will have to be set aside and direction will have to be issued to dispose of the application for condonation of delay. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Revision Application No.26 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The Revision Application is restored to the file. (ii) The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners shall be registered. The said application shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. Only after the said application is disposed of, the : 4 : learned Sessions Judge will pass appropriate order on Criminal Revision Application. (iii) The applicants and 1st respondent are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge at Solapur on 26th August 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The parties will appear for fixing the schedule of hearing of application for condonation of delay. (iv) The learned Sessions Judge may himself take up the application for condonation of delay for hearing or may transfer it to any other court as per his administrative convenience. (v) The application for condonation of delay shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of appearance fixed as above. For a period of 10 weeks from today, the ad-interim relief granted by this Court shall continue to operate. The application for condonation of delay and the revision application will be decided without being influenced by grant of ad-interim relief by this Court. : 5 : (vi) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (vii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (viii) Parties and concerned Court will act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (ix) Record and Proceeding to be sent back forthwith. (A.S.Oka,J)