Parkash Sawant versus Balbir Chauhan Cr. M.P. (M) No.2500 of 2024 14.08.2025 Present: Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for the respondent. The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 192 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant/petitioner was not aware of the decision because he was told by his counsel that he would be informed about the decision of the appeal. The applicant called his counsel several times, but he was informed that his appeal was not decided. The applicant came to know in the last week of September, 2024, about the dismissal of the appeal when the warrants were issued by the learned Trial Court. The applicant obtained a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and filed the revision. The delay in filing the revision is not intentional. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking a preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was asserted that the reasons assigned by the applicant for condoning the delay are vague and do not show any due diligence on the part of the applicant. The applicant was aware of the judgment, and he intentionally delayed the filing of the revision. He had no justification for not preferring the revision within the statutory period of limitation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, learned vice counsel representing the respondent. 4. Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the applicant/petitioner was informed by his counsel that he would be informed about the decision of the appeal. The applicant called the learned counsel many times, but he was told that the appeal was not decided. The applicant came to know about the decision when the warrants of arrest were issued by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition be condoned. 5. Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, learned vice counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the applicant has not given any plausible reason for the delay. He has taken a vague plea that he was assured by his counsel about the decision of the case. The courts send the messages to the litigants regarding the progress of the case, and it is impermissible for the applicant/petitioner to claim that he had no knowledge about the decision of the case. The applicant/petitioner has failed to explain each day’s delay. Therefore, she 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. The plea taken by the applicant that he was assured by his counsel that he would be informed about the decision of the appeal is duly supported by an affidavit, and there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit at this stage. 8. It was submitted that the courts send the messages to the litigants, and the litigant cannot claim that he was not aware of the progress of the case. This submission would have been acceptable had there been proof of the fact that the mobile number of the applicant was mentioned at the time of filing of appeal. An appeal is not filed by a litigant but by an advocate, and it is not unusual for the advocates to mention their mobile numbers instead of the litigant’s mobile number. Therefore, in the absence of any document to show that the mobile number of the applicant/petitioner was mentioned in the records of the learned Appellate Court and the messages were sent to the applicant, his plea cannot be rejected on the ground that the courts send the messages regarding the progress of the cases. 9. The presence of the litigant is not required during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court also does not show the presence of the applicant. Therefore, the plea that the applicant was not present and was not told about the decision of the appeal by the learned counsel has to be accepted as correct. 10. The litigant cannot be penalized for the acts of his learned counsel. Therefore, the applicant has sufficient reason for not filing the revision within the statutory period of limitation. 11. Consequently, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. CR.R.S.T No. 11020 of 2024 Cr. R. No.______ 2025. Be registered. Records of the learned Courts below be called for. List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge August 14, 2025 (y.s)