Delhi District Court
Laxman Das Bhatia vs State And Anr on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CR. REV. No. 483/2023
CNR No. DLST01-012192-2023
LAXMAN DAS BHATIA
S/o R.L. Bhatia
6945 Prince Abdulaziz Ibn,
Musaid Ibn Jalawi-Sulimaniyah,
Unit No. 11, Riyadh 12231-2291
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. ............. Petitioner
Versus
1. STATE
2. MRS. PARVIN CHATTERJEE
W/o Mr. Sanjiv Chatterjee
J-36 B, Ground Floor,
Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II,
New Delhi-17. ...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.12.2023
Final arguments heard on : 06.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 15.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of revision petition filed by petitioner.
2. In the revision petition, it is stated that petitioner has filed present revision petition being aggrieved from order dated 06.10.2023 passed by Ld. MM in Ct Case No.13178/2018 whereby Ld. MM / Trial Court was pleased to dismiss application filed by petitioner under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr.P.C seeking permanent Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 1/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally signed by SONU AGNIHOTRISONU Date: AGNIHOTRI 2026.05.19 14:37:06 +0530 exemption from appearance before Ld. Trial Court in the said case and issued bailable warrants against him. It is stated that order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from patent illegality as Ld. Trial Court passed a non speaking order without assigning any reason to dismiss application filed by petitioner. It failed to take into account current residence proof of petitioner evidencing that he is residing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia wherein he is gainfully employed with Wareef United Company and that it is difficult for him to be present before Ld. Trial Court on each and every date.
3. Brief facts of the case have been mentioned in the revision petition by petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is a professional working in a Multi National Company named Wareef United Company having its office in Riyadh and therefore, is residing in Riyadh. Respondent No.2 is complainant in Ct. Case No.13178/2018 is Sister In Law of petitioner. Petitioner is sole owner of property No.36-B, Pocket-J, Sheikh Sarai, Phase -II, New Delhi (hereinafter mentioned as property in question). Petitioner inducted respondent as tenant in property in question with effect from 01.09.2006 for period of 11 months ending on 31.07.2007 vide registered lease deed dated 21.08.2006. As per terms and conditions of the lease deed, monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid by respondent on or before 7 th of each month regularly.
4. It is stated that on account of non payment of rent qua property in question, petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice dated 16.01.2007 on respondent terminating tenancy of respondent. However, respondent neither paid monthly rent nor handed over possession of property in question. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner was constrained to file civil suit for possession property in question and for Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 2/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SONU
SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.05.19
14:37:10
+0530
recovery of money bearing CS OS No.98/2007. In an attempt to mislead court, respondent raised an issue that petitioner got conveyance deed registered in his name on basis of forged passport, however, court after considering facts and circumstances was pleased to hold that till conveyance deed is declared null and void by competent authority, the said document is a valid document conferring ownership on the petitioner qua property in question and further ordered for possession of property in question vide judgment / decree dated 18.03.2016.
5. It is stated that being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016, respondent preferred an appeal before Ld. ADJ, South District bearing RCA No.8873/2016 which appeal was dismissed by Ld. ADJ vide order dated 06.08.2018.
6. It is stated that on 24.10.2019, petitioner filed execution of judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016 vide Execution No.249/2019 wherein warrants of possession were issued by Executing Court. Subsequent to issuance of warrants, respondent appeared and filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016 on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud.
7. It is stated that on 02.07.2016, respondent filed CS SJC No.84397/2016 seeking cancellation of conveyance deed dated 07.08.2007 on the premise that petitioner had played fraud upon DDA and obtained conveyance deed dated 07.08.2007 on basis of allegedly forged passport but the said suit was dismissed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge vide order dated 17.02.2020 on the ground that it was barred by limitation and res-judicata. Ld. Sr. Civil Judge also held that since respondent is not co-owner of suit property, respondent has no locus to challenge conveyance deed dated 07.08.2007.
Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 3/8
Digitally
signed by
SONU
SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.05.19
14:37:14
+0530
8. It is stated that when aforesaid acts of respondent did not yield desired result, respondent thereafter filed Criminal complaint bearing No. 13178/2018 under Section 420/468/471 IPC before Ld. MM wherein petitioner was summoned vide order dated 18.01.2022 for 29.04.2022. On 29.04.2022, petitioner entered appearance through his counsel and filed exemption application and sought for copy of complaint.
9. On 13.07.2022, petitioner sought bail which was granted to petitioner and thereafter matter was adjourned to 19.12.2022 for post charge evidence. On 19.12.2022, respondent was not present to lead post charge evidence and petitioner filed exemption application on account of being in Riyadh. On 02.03.2023, Ld. Trial Court was on leave and matter was adjourned to 14.04.2023. On 14.04.2023, respondent was not present to lead her post charge evidence and petitioner filed exemption application on account of being present in Riyadh and matter was adjourned to 18.07.2023. On 18.07.2023, matter was again adjourned to 06.10.2023 on account of floods in and around Delhi, however, petitioner filed application seeking permanent exemption on account of petitioner residing in Riyadh.
10. In the meantime, respondent filed CS SCJ No.2827/2022 seeking declaration of order dated 18.03.2017 and 11.04.2016 passed in CS OS No.98/2007 as null and void along with interim application on the ground that the said decree was obtained by fraud. It is stated that Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts after considering facts and circumstances was pleased to dismiss the said application filed by respondent vide order dated 03.02.2023. Respondent being aggrieved by the said order filed MCA DJ No.24/23 wherein Court of Ld. ADJ was pleased to decline any ad interim relief vide order dated Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 4/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SONU
SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.05.19
14:37:19
+0530
17.07.2023.
11. It is stated that on 06.10.2023, when the matter was listed for post charge evidence to be conducted by respondent, petitioner filed exemption application on account of he being in Riyadh. Ld. Trial Court without calling for a reply was pleased to dismiss the said application on 18.07.2023 by non speaking order. Ld. Trial Court also issued bailable warrants on the premise that petitioner could have shown his bonafide by joining proceedings through VC, however, when counsel for petitioner requested for pass over so that he could convey to petitioner to join proceedings through VC, the said request was declined by Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court while issuing bailable warrants failed to take into consideration that non appearance of petitioner before Ld. Trial Court was bonafide and non deliberate. Ld. Trial Court erred by observing that matter was listed for cross examination of respondent whereas examination in chief of respondent was yet to be recorded.
12. Following grounds of revision have been taken by petitioner:
(a) Because impugned order suffers from patent illegality as Ld. Trial Court has passed a non speaking order without assigning any reasons.
(b) Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration that matter was listed for post charge evidence to be conducted by respondent and petitioner filed exemption application on account of he being in Riyadh.
(c) Ld. Trial Court dismissed application filed by petitioner on 18.07.2023 under Section 205 and 317 Cr.P.C seeking permanent exemption even without calling a reply from respondent.
(d) Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 5/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally signed by SONU SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.05.19
14:37:24 +0530
consider request made by counsel for petitioner seeking short pass over to make petitioner join hearing through VC and wrongly recorded in impugned order that petitioner could have shown his bonafide by joining through VC.
(e) Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration that petitioner also filed an application for exemption for the said date along with an application for permanent exemption and had erroneously issued bailable warrants on incorrect premise that petitioner failed to show his bonafide by joining proceedings online through VC.
(f) Because Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration the fact that current residence proof of petitioner is of Riyadh where he is gainfully employed with Wareef United Company and it is difficult for him to be present before Ld. Trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
(g) Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration the fact that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and also has property in question in his name in India and is not running away from proceedings initiated against him.
(h) Because Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration that matter was listed for post charge evidence to be conducted by respondent and Ld. Trial Court wrongly stated that matter was listed for cross examination of respondent.
(i) Because Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to take into consideration that non appearance before Ld. Trial Court and through VC was non deliberate and bonafide.
(j) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to take into consideration Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 6/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally signed by SONU AGNIHOTRISONU Date: AGNIHOTRI 2026.05.19 14:37:28 +0530 that it was respondent who was delaying the proceedings as on 06.10.2023 as well as on previous date, respondent did not carry out her examination in chief for petitioner to conduct her cross examination.
13. It is prayed to allow revision petition filed by petitioner and, set aside impugned order, and allow permanent exemption application of petitioner before Ld. Trial Court and cancel bailable warrants issued against petitioner.
14. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for Petitioner and State/Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 did not address any arguments despite appearance being put up by Respondent No. 2 before Court through Counsel.
15. Ld. Addl. PP for State during course of arguments submitted that it is prerogative of Ld. Trial Court to ask a party to appear in person and technically, State does not wish to make any further submissions in this regard.
16. Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner sought permanent exemption from personal appearance as Petitioner is based in Riyadh and it is difficult for Petitioner to appear physically on each and every date of hearing before Ld. Trial Court. He during course of arguments, however, submitted that Petitioner is ready to appear physically before Ld. Trial Court as and when required to.
17. Keeping in view the fact that Petitioner is employed in Riyadh and it will be difficult for him to appear physically on each and every date of hearing before Ld. Trial Court, I am of the view that application filed by Petitioner seeking permanent exemption should have been disposed of by Ld. Trial Court allowing Petitioner to appear through VC on each and every date of hearing and on the day when his physical Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 7/8 Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SONU
SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date:
2026.05.19
14:37:33
+0530
presence is required, advance direction in this regard should have been given to Petitioner to appear in person on next date of hearing. In the circumstances when it is not disputed that Petitioner is gainfully employed in Riyadh, I am of the view that impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court will operate harshly against Petitioner and will be against principles of natural justice. Impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court is therefore set-aside. Permanent exemption application filed by Petitioner before Ld. Trial Court stands disposed of as allowed with direction to Petitioner to join proceedings before Ld. Trial Court on each and every date of hearing through VC and to appear physically as and when directed by Ld. Trial Court. Bailable Warrants ordered to be issued against Petitioner are ordered to be recalled.
18. In view of my abovemade observations, revision petition filed by petitioner stands allowed. Let copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court with TCR.
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SONU SONU AGNIHOTRI
AGNIHOTRI Date: 2026.05.19
Announced in open Court 14:37:39 +0530
on 15.05.2026 (Sonu Agnihotri)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
Cr. Rev. No. 483/2023 8/8
Laxman Das Bhatia vs. State & Anr.