Bombay High Court
JAIMALA VISHNU PARULEKARversusMAYUR VISHNU PARULEKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court condoned the 230‑day delay in filing the criminal revision application.
Summary
Ms. Jaimala V. Parulekar, a 71‑year‑old senior citizen, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 230‑day delay in filing a criminal revision petition. She explained that she had prepared a draft review petition for the Sessions Court, but was advised by court officials to file an appeal instead, which caused the delay. The Respondents, represented by Mr. S. A. Waradkar, opposed the condonation. The Court examined the reasons offered, noting the applicant’s age and the procedural advice received, and found them adequate. Consequently, the Court allowed the condonation of the delay and disposed of the interim application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 230 days in filing a criminal revision application can be condoned on the ground of the applicant being a senior citizen and having received procedural advice from court officials.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- criminal revision
- senior citizen
- procedural law
- interim application
Judgment
12-REVN-231-IA-1566-REVN-231-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2026
Jaimala Vishnu Parulekar …Applicant
Versus
Mayur Vishnu Parulekar & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1566 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2026
Jaimala Vishnu Parulekar …Applicant
Versus
Mayur Vishnu Parulekar & Ors. …Respondents
Ms. Jaimala V. Parulekar, Applicant, in person.
Mr. S. A. Waradkar, for the Respondent
Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 30 September 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Jaimala Parulekar, Applicant, in person and Mr.
Waradkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2.
2. The Interim Application No. 1566 of 2026 is taken out for
condonation of delay of 230 days in filing Criminal Revision
Application.
Aftab S.
Page 1 of 2
30th September, 2026
12-REVN-231-IA-1566-REVN-231-2026.DOC
3. Ms. Parulekar, the Applicant points out the reasons and
states that adequate reasons are given. Mr. Waradkar, learned
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly opposes the
Application.
4. There is delay of 230 days in filing the Criminal Revision
Application. The reasons are set out in Paragraph No. 4. It is stated
that the Applicant is a senior citizen, the Applicant prepared a draft
of Review Petition in time to be filed in the Sessions Court,
however, the Officials of the Sessions Court advised the Applicant
to file an Appeal and, therefore, after taking advice this Criminal
Revision application has been filed. The Applicant states that, in
this process there is delay in filing the Criminal Revision
Application. The Applicant is a senior citizen of 71 years.
Accordingly, adequate reasons are given.
5. For the reasons sought out in the Interim Application, the
same is allowed by condoning the delay of 230 days in filing the
Criminal Revision Application.
6. The Interim Application is disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Aftab S.
Page 2 of 2
30th September, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.