Bombay High Court
Versatile Buildcon Pvt LtdversusKaramshi Vajrang Mota
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the 35‑day delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
Versatile Buildcon Pvt Ltd. and another filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 35‑day delay in filing a criminal revision application, citing the medical condition of the wife of applicant No.2 as the reason for the delay. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that no medical evidence was produced. The court noted that the applicants had deposited the entire cheque amount and found the 35‑day delay not inordinate. Consequently, the court condoned the delay, allowed and disposed of the interim application, and ordered that the revision application be registered.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 35 days in filing a criminal revision application can be condoned despite lack of medical documentation.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- revision application
- criminal procedure
- interim application
- limitation
Judgment
905-IA-3276-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3276 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 18628 OF 2026
Versatile Buildcon Pvt Ltd. & Anr. … Applicants
VERSUS
Karamshi Vajrang Mota & Anr. … Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
SATISH Date:
KILAJE
KILAJE 2026.09.24
Mr. Mihir Linge (Through VC) a/w. Ms. Sadhana Sonkar and Mr.Memon
18:31:51 +0530
M. Gaffar, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Siddhesh Samel i/b. Mr. Ankit Mota, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M.G.Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicants are seeking condonation of
delay of 35 days in filing the Revision Application.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to medical
condition of the applicant No.2’s wife, applicants could not file revision
application within limitation time and requested to allow the application.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 strongly objected to
condone the delay on the ground that there is no explanation of delay
condonation and no documents produced on record to show the health of
the applicant No.2’s wife was not well.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. The applicants have
Page 1 of 2
905-IA-3276-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
deposited entire cheque amount. The delay of 35 days is not inordinate.
Considering this fact, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The delay of 35 days is condoned for filing Revision
Application.
(ii) Interim Application is allowed and disposed of.
5. The Revision Application be registered.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.