[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Soniya Arya vs Baburam Arya on 12 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1237
1 MCRC-26486-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26486 of 2025
SMT SONIYA ARYA
Versus
BABURAM ARYA
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Dudawat Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rahul Jha - Advocate for the
petitioner .
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been preferred by the
petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2025 in criminal revision
No.184/2025 passed by 17th District Judge, Gwalior, whereby an application
under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of more than
07 years in preferring the said criminal revision, has been allowed and the
delay has been condoned.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that from bare
perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that on some extraneous
grounds the said application has been allowed and delay of more than 07
years was condoned, without dealing with the legal position as has been
enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in their various
decisions, thus, the said order deserves to the set aside and the matter is
required to be relegated back to the revisional Court to decide the said
application on its own merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1237
2 MCRC-26486-2025
3. Learned Senior counsel has further argued that one of the grounds
taken by revisional Court for condoning the delay is that a liberty was
granted in M.Cr.C. No.14110/2025, wherein the order impugned herein was
also challenged, thus, when a permission was granted to respondent for filing
the revision, the delay caused in filing is required to be condoned, which is a
perverse finding, as from bare reading of the order of this Court dated
15.04.2025 passed in the aforesaid MCRC, it was the respondent, who had
sought withdrawal of the 482 petition with a liberty to assail the order before
the revisional Court, which cannot in any way said to be a permission
granted by this Court. While referring to the judgment in the matter of
Amalendu Kumar Bera & others Vs. State of W.B. reported in 2013(3)
MPLJ 1; learned Senior Counsel has argued that while considering the
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act sufficient cause should be
considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the
technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days' delay and in
absence of sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned. It was, thus,
prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order impugned herein be
set aside and the matter be remitted back to the revisional authority to pass
an order on its own merits.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no illegality has
been committed by the revisional authority in allowing the application and
condoning the delay, thus, prayed for dismissal of present petition filed
under Section 528 of BNSS.
5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the impugned order, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1237
3 MCRC-26486-2025
is found that grave illegality and perversity has been committed by the
revisional authority in condoning the unexplained delay of seven years in the
very mechanical manner. No permission was granted by this Court while
passing the order in M.Cr.C. No.14110/2025 on 15.04.2025, rather it was the
respondent No.2 who had withdrawn the petition with a liberty to assail the
order of taking cognizance before the revisional Court, thus, the revisional
Court was required to consider the application on its own merits and to arrive
at a conclusion that sufficient cause was demonstrated by respondent No.2
for condoning the delay in preferring the revision.
6. Since the order suffers from perversity and illegality, this Court
while allowing the present petition and setting aside the impugned order
dated 05.06.2025, remits the matter back to the revisional authority to
consider the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on its own merits
and decide the same in accordance with law.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on the next
date of hearing, fixed in the matter.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
