IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 935 of 2001 Smt. Umesh Kumari W/o Col. Bharat Singh R/o Govind Niwas,Bharatpur Rajasthan. .……….Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Smt. Uma Kumari W/o Shri Randhir Singh R/O Patiala Farm, V-Chandula Vaya Chhatarpur, Mehrauli, Delhi. 3. Smt. Usha Devi, W/o Kunwar Pratap Singh, R/o 112/3C2, Silver Oak, Opposite D.T.C. Office, Phase D.L.P. Gurgaon, Haryana. 4. Smr. Jayanti Shah, W/o Shri Vikram Shah, R/o Ram Nagar Champaran Bihar. …………Opposite parties. Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate present for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. present for respondent No. 1. Shri L.K.Tiwari, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2 to 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application moved on behalf of the revisionist for condonation of delay in filing the revision 2 against the order dated 11.05.2001, passed by Additional District Judge 4th /Fast Track Court, Dehradun in criminal revision No. 96 of 2000, whereby said court set aside the summoning order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case No.1096 of 1999. 2. There is a delay of sixty one days in filing the revision which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit of S.P.Singh, on behalf of the revisionist. Also, counter affidavit has been filed by Uma Kumari on behalf of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4. 3. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned, 4. Also heard on the revision and perused the papers on record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below (revisional court) has committed error of law in allowing the revision and in setting aside the summoning order dated 11.06.1999, passed by Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate in criminal case No. 1096 of 1999, State vs. Uma Devi. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the dispute relates to a ‘will’ dated 07.01.1970. In respect of said ‘will’ a civil litigation was filed which was registered as suit No. 439 of 1982. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4 submitted that the said suit in which the will in question was challenged was dismissed on 13.11.2001. Meanwhile the revisionist had initiated criminal proceedings in the year 1996, after a period of more than 25 years of execution of ‘will’. The Revisional court has discussed the reasons at length as to the fact that there was no material before the Magistrate for summoning the accused. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the revisional court (Additional District Judge 4th /Fast Track Court, Dehradun) in the order dated 11.05.2001, passed in criminal case No. 96 of 2000. 4 7. The revision is dismissed. All the pending applications including criminal misc. application No. 89 of 2008 stand disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:28.04.2010 parul 5