Sughandha Sood vs. Kushal Kumar and others. Cr. MP No. 1248 of 2025 Reserved on 18.03.2026. Cr. Appeal No. 86 of 2017 16.04.2026 Present: Mr Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3/State. Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2017 Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant. Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Cr. MP No. 1248 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No.86 of 2017 The applicant/appellant/victim has filed the present application for converting the appeal into a revision. It has been asserted that the appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 04.10.2024, and this Court enquired about the maintainability of the appeal because of the provision of Section 52 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant/victim went through the matter and found out that the appeal was filed under section 372 of the Cr.P.C., which is a general provision. However, Section 52 (3) of the J.J Act, which is a specific provision, provides that no second appeal shall lie from the order of the Court of Session passed in an appeal under this section. Since the provisions of the JJ Act are special provisions, they will override the provisions of Cr.P.C., and the appeal is not maintainable. The applicant/victim/appellant was required to file a criminal revision against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the present application. 2. The application is opposed by respondents No.1 & 2 by filing a reply admitting that the Court had enquired from the Ld. counsel about the maintainability of the appeal because of the provision of Section 52 of the J.J. Act. The conversion of the appeal to the revision will cause great prejudice to the non-applicant/respondents, as the appeal was filed in the year 2017, and the statutory time limit for filing a revision has expired. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant/victim and Mr Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/non-applicants. 4. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, Ld. counsel for the appellant/applicant/victim, submitted that the applicant had wrongly filed the present appeal. The appeal was not maintainable, and a revision should have been filed by the applicant. The error was committed by learned counsel, and the applicant should not be punished for the same. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the present appeal be converted into a revision. 5. Mr Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants submitted that the revision is barred by limitation as of today. The non- applicant will suffer a grave prejudice in case the present application is allowed. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It is undisputed that Section 52(3) bars further appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and the special provision contained in the JJ Act will overwrite the general provision contained in Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah, (2019) 9 SCC 533: (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 638: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1308 that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision of law is not fatal if the power to pass an order is available with the court. It was observed: 8. It is well-settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. 8. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal, (2022) 1 HCC (Del) 25: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4, wherein it was observed: 11. Regarding the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant that the present application is filed under Section 151 CPC instead of under Order 9 CPC. However, under Section 151 CPC, this Court has inherent power to consider an application wherein a wrong provision is mentioned. It cannot be an obstacle for granting the relief as made out from the contents of the application as held in the Gotham Entertainment Group LLC case [Gotham Entertainment Group LLC v. Diamond Comics (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4009]. 12. It is trite that quoting a wrong statutory provision does not create a bar and stand in the way of considering the application, as held in the Nitish Arora case [Nitish Arora v. State of Delhi, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 142: (2007) 141 DLT 21]. Thus, on this aspect, this Court is not convinced by the contention of learned counsel for the defendant. 13. Undisputedly, the applicant plaintiff filed the present suit for partition in which he is claiming a 60% share in the suit property and recovery of Rs 86,50,000 with interest thereon, which is the subject matter of trial. However, at this stage, the claim cannot be considered as false and based on a concocted story. 9. Therefore, the mere mentioning of the wrong provision of the law by the applicant will not be material when the source of jurisdiction can be traced to some other provision. 10. In the present case, a revision is maintainable, and the Court could have decided the appeal by treating it as a revision as per the binding precedent of Pruthviraj (supra) even without any application for conversion; therefore, the submission that a prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant by converting the present appeal into a revision cannot be accepted. A revision filed in the year 2016 would have been within the limitation, and the submission that the application is barred by limitation is also not acceptable. 11. Therefore, the present application is allowed, and the applicant is permitted to convert the appeal into a revision. Necessary correction be made. The amended memo be filed, and the matter be listed thereafter. 12. The present application stands disposed of Cr. Appeal Nos. 86 and 97 of 2017. List the matter after four weeks. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16thApril, 2026 (Nikita)