- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. This revision with the delay condonation application was presented on 23-6-1993. It was beyond time by 153 days. By the order dated 29-6-1993, the notices were directed to be is sued to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 of delay condonation application which is sup ported by an affidavit of the revisionist who is the husband of opposite party No. 2 and father of the minors opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. The order dated 22-10-1992 passed by the Judge of Family Court, Meerut in case No. 231 of 1991 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. has been sought to be challenged by means of this revision. The order was passed by the Court below on the basis of a compromise filed by the parties which was been duly verified.
(2.) THE ground advanced in support of the delay condonation application is that the revisionisl had handed over the papers to one Janesh Kumar in January, 1993 to file rhe revision. He informed the revisionist that he had handed over the papers to Sri Ravindra Rai, Advocate on 5th June, 1993 to file the revision. How ever, when the revisionist contacted him on 6th June, 1993 about the result of the case, he found that the papers had not been handed over to the counsel. THEn he contacted Janesh Kumar, his pairokar and discovered that he had told a lie to him. THE revisionist then sent his brother Dinesh Chandra along with all the docu ments to his counsel Sri Ravindra Rai on 21-6-1993. THE revision was then prepared and filed (23-6-1993 ). Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Santosh Rai (wife of revisionist) has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the contention of the revisionist. It has also been pointed out that no affidavit of Janesh Kumar has been filed to whom the papers were al legedly handed over by the revisionisl in January, 1993 for taking them to Sri Ravindra Rai, Advocate at Allahabad for filing the revision. It has also been sub mitted that the revision itself was incom petent, being against an order passed on the basis of compromise. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find substantial force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. Indeed, there is no affidavit of Janesh Kumar to whom the papers had allegedly been handed over by the revisionist in the first week of January, 1993 for taking the same to the counsel at Allahabad for filing the revision. It also goes unexplained as to why did he keep waiting till 6-6-1993 when he allegedly enquired about the fate of the revision. Moreover it is also to be noted that the impugned order had been passed by the Court below on the basis of com promise verified by the parlies. The con duct of the revisionist rather indicates that he simply wanted to harass the opposite parties.
(3.) THEDELAYCONDONALIONAPPLICATION is unmerited. It is hereby dismissed. The revision petition also siands dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;