919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC Akash Tayde IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2620 OF 2025 Sabar Shapur Irani And Ors. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra And Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anosh F. Irani i/b Gayatri N. Gokhale, for the Petitioners Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent – State. Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Sunil Rane, PSI, Juhu, Police Station, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 17TH JUNE 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. By the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 25th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, (Borivali Division), Dindoshi, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024. By the impugned order the Delay Condonation Application filed by Page 1 919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC Akash Tayde the Petitioners has been rejected in preferring the revision challenging order dated 05th April 2021 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court. 3. Mr. Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that, although, the order issuing process is dated 05th April 2021 in the month of January - February, 2024 the summons were served upon the Petitioners and thereafter efforts were made to settle the dispute, however as the said efforts failed, earlier Writ Petition was filed on 20th August 2024 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by granting liberty to file appropriate proceedings by order dated 23rd September 2024 and thereafter Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024 was filed before the City Civil and Sessions Court, seeking Condonation of Delay on 10th October 2022. Thus, it is submitted that considering the pendency of the Writ Petition there is delay of 96 days. It is further submitted that the delay has been caused as one of the Petitioner is 94 years old. 4. On the other Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, strongly opposed the granting any relief in Writ Petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.3 is an Advocate and therefore, the Petitioner should have been more vigilant. It is Page 2 919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC Akash Tayde further submitted that, although, the Petitioner No.1 is Senior Citizen of 94 years old that cannot be a ground for delay. 5. Perusal of the record shows that, although there is some substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner should have been more diligent, however, reasons are given for delay condonation. The delay is about 100 days. The Petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen of 94 years old. Thus, case is made out for grant of relief to the Petitioners subject to payment of cost to the Respondent No.2. 6. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for granting condonation of delay. However, it is required to be noted that the proceedings are filed in the year 2014 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court and considering the overall facts and circumstances and the hardship which has been caused to the Respondent No.2, following order is passed :- O R D E R I. Order dated 25th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi in Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. Page 3 919-CRI.WP-2620-2025.DOC Akash Tayde II. Miscellaneous Application No.397 of 2024 seeking Condonation of Delay is allowed on the condition that the Petitioners pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Respondent No.2 as a cost within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the said cost is not paid within a period of four weeks then in that event the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4