Crl. Misc. No. M-17408 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17408 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 29.06.2010 Ravel Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed against order dated 29.8.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default and order dated 2.6.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, the application for restoration has also been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that no order has been passed on the application for condonation of delay moved by the petitioner and there is no mention with regard to condonation of delay in the said order. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petition was dismissed in default whereas the application was to be decided first. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders. It appears from the impugned order that revision petition was dismissed in default without taking note of the application for condonation of delay. The said application should have been decided first. Although, Crl. Misc. No. M-17408 of 2010 (2) the petitioner also moved an application for restoration of the revision petition and no such application was moved for deciding the application for condonation of delay or restoration of said application. If the petitioner is directed to file application in this regard and at this stage that would mere be wastage of time of the Court as the revision petition has been dismissed in default without taking note of the application for condonation of delay. The application filed by the petitioner was also for restoration of the revision petition and not for deciding the application for condonation of delay, which is not maintainable. The Court as well as the counsel have adopted the wrong path without any application of mind. Moreover, only the application was under consideration not revision. The revision has wrongly been dismissed in default. Accordingly, impugned orders 29.8.2009 and 2.6.2010 are set aside with a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar to decide the application for condonation of delay first and then to decide the revision in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. June 29, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No