1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A.A. Khande, Advocate, holding for Shri M.P.Kale Advocate for the Petitioner. 1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge-II, Parbhani on 1.8.2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2009, thereby refusing to condone the delay of 21 day in preferring revision against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First 2 Class, Selu in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2009 on 18.2.2009 by which the said application was rejected. 2. The said decision of the learned Magistrate was sought to be challenged by the present petitioner before the Sessions Court. She, therefore, filed revision along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing revision, before the Sessions Court. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that there was error in calculating the limitation. Secondly, it is also submitted that the applicant was ill from 13.5.2009 to 21.5.2009 and therefore, there was delay. 3 3. The learned District Judge-II Judge observed that Advocate would not give wrong advice to his client regarding limitation and also observed that since the petitioner was fit to resume duty on 22.5.2009, she should have immediately filed revision and not on 10.6.2009. The learned Judge has also observed that it is unbelievable that Advocate would commit any mistake or would give wrong advice to his client. This observation, in my opinion, is not correct, as the Advocate is also human being and therefore may err or commit mistake. Moreover, illness is also a genuine ground or reason, but the learned Judge observed that immediately after recovery from 4 illness, the applicant should have filed revision application. 4. Original application before the trial court was for maintenance. For filing revision against order in the said application, the client has to make arrangement of fees and also obtain certified copies of the order and documents. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the learned District Judge-II was not justified in not allowing the application for condonation of delay. 5 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.8.2009 passed by District Judge- II, Parbhani in M.A. No.21 of 2009 filed by present petitioner is hereby set aside. Delay in filing said application is condoned and the said application is allowed. District Court is directed to register the said revision application on file and proceed with the same in accordance with law. 07. Writ Petition disposed of. ٍDate:04/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp804.09