IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1382 of 2007 Bishnu Jee Gupta Versus Madhuri Devi ---------------------------------- I.A. No.3819 of 2007 8. 30.11.2011 Heard Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha for the petitioner, and Ajat Shatru for the opposite party. The petitioner (the husband), has filed this interlocutory application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay in filing this civil revision application. It appears from the marginal note that the present civil revision application has been permitted to be converted into a criminal revision by order dated 7.7.2009. It appears from the stamp report that the period of limitation for the criminal revision application expired on 2.10.2006, whereas this civil revision application was filed on 13.7.2007. The delay is enormous and appears to be un-explained. It appears from the impugned order that, inspite of the valid service of notice, the present petitioner did not appear in Misc. Case No.4 of 2006. The main matter was initiated by opposite party herein (the wife), under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been allowed 2 by the impugned order. It appears to us that the petitioner is trying to harass the opposite party (the wife). We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in preferring this civil revision application. I.A. No. 3819 of 2007 is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the civil revision becomes incompetent. This civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)