IN TEEgI‘IIGI-LCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G . CRIMINAL Mlsc.pmTlTl0N No.2,qj OF 2007 , , gym Imam? k b V: Stat. Savitri Mishra, daughter o£ late Satyanarayan Pandey,aged about 50 years, resident cf Behind Durga ' Mand 1r .Udiyapara .s ar aipali ,District- Mahasamund .(C.G.) US Prahlad,son of late Lakhpati Teli, aged about 40 years ,Occupation- Agriculturist,resident cf Village- Baloda,chowki Baloda,Police station and Tehsil-Seraipali,District- Mahasamundw .G . ) X” gETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OE Tm CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE . E .) HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION Nu. 249 OF 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Savitn' Mishra, daughtar of late Satyanarayan Pandey, aged about 5O years, resident of Behind Dul‘ga Mandir, Udiyapara, Saraipali, Dis’m'ct — Mahasamund, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT Prahlad, son of late Lakhpati Teli, agsd about 40 years, occupation- Agn'cultun‘st, residcnt of Village Baloda, Chowki Baloda, Polico Station and Tshsil ~Saraipali Disn'ct— Mahasamund (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SE :Hon’bie Mr. T.P.Sharma, .1} Present. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocatc on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rewa Shankar Pate}, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 12/8/2009) 1. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the code) against the order dated, 16/ 5/ 2007 passed by the Earned First Additional Sessions Judge], Mahasamund in criminal revision No. 28/200o where by lea/fried First Additional Sessions Judge, has dismissed the revision on the ground of its limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his petition was dismissed by the revisional Court on the ground that it was tiled after 6 to 7 days of its limitation and petitioner has not explained the delay in filing such petition although petitioner has duly explained the delay in tiling the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 4. Ordsr impugn€d psrused. It rewals hat revision agains: the fmai t ordér passeunder Section 145 of the "Cod” waS (iismissed only d' e on the sole ground that it was filed after 6 to 7 days of its limitation and petitioner haS not explained the delay in such ming petition. In m — of the order reveals that after receiving the copy Pa 6 petitioner had gone to Bhilai to meet with her brother after coming back to the Bhilai she has hled the revision. 5. Parties are required to explain the delay of each day but court was required to take libeml View there cannot e straight jacket b formula for explanation of the delay. 6. Order impugned reveals that petitioner has explained the delay before he revision court. Revisional Court has dismissed the t revsion filed against the final order passed under Secti 145 of i on the Code relating to possession of the immovable property only on the ground of limitation. Order impugned is not sustainale and to b secure the ends ofjustice. It requires reconsideration. 7. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set g \. aside. Revisional court is directed to consider and decide the revision on its on merits and pass the order afresh. Parties are } directed to present before the Revisional Court on 231d September- 2009 for further progress of the revision. it? Shafma Judge 4W