-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.593 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.594 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2009 Chandrakant B. Garware ...Petitioner (in all the petitions) vs. Gill and Co. Ltd. ...Respondent (in all the petitions) Mr.Kiran Kulkarni for the petitioner Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa A.P.P for State Mr.Sandeep Velkar with Mr.Amit Joshi i/b M/s.Mulla & Mulla for the respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 17, 2009 JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent and learned A.P.P for the State. On 21 ST APRIL 2009, following order was passed by this court: 1. The Advocate for the first respondent seeks time on the ground that he has received the papers today. To be placed for admission on 17 th June 2009. 2.The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that what was -2- argued before the Sessions Court was an application for condonation of delay. He submitted that though no arguments were advanced on merits of the revision application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has disposed of the revision application on merits. 3.In view of the aforesaid submissions, on the next date the parties are put to notice that an endeavour will be made to decide the petition finally at the stage of admission. 4.Till next date, there will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). 2 The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision applications preferred by the petitioners before the Sessions court were never heard on merits and in fact the revisions applications were never fixed for admission. He has placed on record a xerox copy of the certified copy of the Roznama of the proceedings of the revision applications. He submitted that the revisions applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed without hearing the Advocate for the petitioner. 3 The learned counsel for the first repsondent disputes the factual contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. He states that there was absolutely no merit in the revision applications preferred by the petitioner in this petition and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in passing the impugned orders. He submitted that if order of remand is passed, these will be a further delay in disposal of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent especially when the petitioners -3- in these petitions have no case on merits considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the first respondent. He therefore submitted that in writ jurisdiction no interference be made and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. In order dated 21st April 2009 which was passed in presence of the counsel for the first respondent, this court has referred the specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what was argued before the Sessions Court was an application for condonation of delay and though no arguments were advanced on merits of the revision application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has disposed of the revision application on merits. Till today, the is no reply filed by the first respondent though by order dated 21st April 2009 it was made clear that to the petitions will be heard finally. There is no affidavit filed by the first respondent disputing what is recorded in paragraph 2 of the order dated 21st April 2009. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record xerox copies of the certified copies of the Roznama of criminal revision applications filed before the Sessions Court. The Roznama discloses that on 12 th January 2009, applications made by the petitioners for condonation of delay were placed on board and submissions of the counsel for the parties were heard and the said applications were adjourned to 16th April 2009 for orders. The Roznama further discloses that on 16th -4- January 2009, the order was not pronounced as it was not ready. The Roznama dated 19th January 2009 reads thus : 19.1.2009 MA 1781/2008 to MA 1783/2008 CORAM : H.H.J.SHRI S.G.DESHPANDE (C.R.17) APP D.M.Lade for the State present. Advocate Nervrekar for respondent. Applicant absent. Advocate absent. Delay condoned. MA stands disposed off. FRSR following order is passed : ORDER . The revision application is dismissed with the only hope that the case would be decided at the earliest. The Registrar is directed to give number to revision for statistical purpose. 6 It is crystal clear from the Roznama that on 12th January 2009, 16th January 2009 and 19th January 2009 the applications for condonation of delay were on the board of Sessions Court. The Roznama dated 19th January 2009 records that the delay is condoned and the applications are disposed of. The Roznama does not disclose that after delay was condoned, revision applications were placed for admission or that the submissions of the counsel for the parties were heard on merits of the revision applications. In fact, the roznama dated 19th January 2009 records that the Advocate for the petitioner was absent. From the Roznama it is crystal clear that on 12th January 2009, revision applications were not heard on merits. In fact, the revision applications could not have been heard on merits on that date as delay was not condoned and delay was condoned only on 19th January 2009. It -5- must be noted that the Roznama dated 16th January 2009 records that on 19th January 2009 the applications were kept for passing orders. After condoning the delay, the learned Sessions Judge could have kept the revision applications for admission or considering the controversy involved, he could have specifically passed an order directing that the revision applications shall be disposed of finally at admission stage. The Roznama shows that on 19th January 2009 the Advocate for the petitioner was absent. However, in the impugned order passed on 19th January 2009 on the revision applications, the learned Judge has specifically mentioned that he has heard the Advocate for the petitioner. 7 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the revision applications preferred by the petitioner in these petitions were never fixed for admission and there was no occasion for the learned Sessions Judge to decide the said revision applications on merits. The learned counsel for the first respondent tried to submit that what is urged by the petitioner in these petitions is mere technicality. It is not mere technicality as the revision applications have been disposed of on merits though the revision applications were never fixed for admission and the petitioner was never heard on merits of the revision applications. There is one more aspect of the matter. The revision applications were filed on the basis of the liberty granted by this court by order dated 9 th September 2008. -6- 8 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the Revision applications are restored to the file of the Sessions Court. ii)Since the original complaint filed by the first respondent is of the year 1995, revision applications will have to be heard expeditiously. iii)Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court on 13 th July 2008 at 11.00 a.m. The learned Judge may himself hear the revision applications or may transfer it to any other Judge. iv)It is desirable that the revision applications should be expeditiously taken up for hearing. The revision applications shall be heard and decided expeditiously and in any event on or befor 30 th September 2009. v) It is made clear that the parties are directed to appear on 13 th July 2008 before the learned Principal Judge and no fresh notice of the date fixed will be served to the parties. vi)Ad-interim relief granted by this court on 21 st April 2009 will continue to operate till the disposal of the revision applications. vii)All contentions of the parties on merits of the revision applications are kept open. JUDGE