Allahabad High Court
Mithlesh Kumar Rai vs State Of U.P. & Others on 25 January, 2010
Author: Ram Autar Singh
Bench: Ram Autar Singh
Court No. - 20 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 477 of 2007 Petitioner :- Mithlesh Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rakesh Pande Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
Affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist is taken on record.
It shows that the opp. party nos. 2 to 4 have refused to receive the notice. Thus service of notice on O.P. no.2 to 4 is sufficient, but no counter affidavit has been filed against the application moved under section 5 of Limitation Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist on application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The ground of delay of eight months in filing this revision has not been explained satisfactorily. The revisionist has mentioned in the affidavit that as he was working for Times of India Group at Delhi and as soon as he came to know of order dated 27.4.2007, he immediately filed this revision on 4.2.2007 which is quite insufficient.
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
The revision is also dismissed due to its being barred by limitation.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010 R