Bombay High Court

Rajul Rahul Shinde Minor represented through Maternal Grandfather Mr Pundalik DhokeversusThe State of Maharashtra

Decided: 23 April 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: N R BORKAR

Holding

The Court held that the delay may be condoned where the impugned order is ex‑parte and no notice was served.

Summary

The applicant, a minor represented by his maternal grandfather, sought condonation of a 672‑day delay in filing a revision against an ex‑parte order dated 30 June 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel. The applicant argued that the ex‑parte nature of the order meant no summons or notice was served, justifying the delay. The respondent (Respondent No.2) contended that the delay was inordinate and should not be condoned. The Court noted that the fact of the order being ex‑parte was not disputed and, after hearing counsel, allowed the application. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and ordered the revision application to be admitted on 5 May 2026.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 672 days in filing a revision application can be condoned on the ground that the impugned order was ex‑parte

Subjects

condonation of delay
revision
ex‑parte order
criminal appellate jurisdiction
minor representation

Judgment

                                                       40-cr-ia-2918-25 in revst.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2025
                                 IN
                  REVISION (ST) NO. 15980 OF 2025

Rajul Rahul Shinde
Minor represented through
Maternal Grandfather
Pundalik Dhoke                                      …Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     ...Respondents.

                              …………..
Mr. Sagare Paspohe a/w. Ms Anamika Biswas for the Applicant.
Mrs. S.M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Govind Solanke for Respondent No.2.
                             …………..

                              CORAM         :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                              DATE          :   23.04.2026.
P.C. :

1.       Mentioned out of turn.


2.       This is an application for condonation of delay of 672 days in
filing the revision application against the judgment and order
dated 30th June 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Panvel in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2021.


3.       I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.


4.       Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order
impugned in revision application is an ex-parte order and no


Dinesh S. Sherla                      1/2
                                                           40-cr-ia-2918-25 in revst.odt


summons or notice was served upon the petitioner in the appeal
filed by respondent No.2. It is submitted that delay in filing the
revision thus may be condoned.


5.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
submits that there is inordinate delay of 672 days in filing the
revision and the same may not be condoned.


6.       The fact that the order impugned is an ex-parte order is not
disputed. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed.


                                    O RDER
         a.        Application is allowed.


         b.        The delay of 672 days in filing the revision application
         is condoned.


         c.        Revision Application (St) No. 15980 OF 2025 be
         placed for admission on 5th May 2026.



                                                   [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Dinesh S. Sherla                             2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…