Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Advocate - Shyam sunder Mishra — 16/2026

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Revision

CNR: UPCH010001992026

Filing Number

187/2026

Filing Date

27-Jan-2026

Registration No

16/2026

Registration Date

27-Jan-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

RAJAPUR

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arvind Kumar Tiwari

    Adv. Shushil Kumar Tripathi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of U.P. Advocate - Shyam sunder Mishra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot allowed an application to condone a one-year delay in filing a criminal revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The court found "sufficient cause" for the delay, holding that the applicant had no knowledge of the criminal case against him until 22.01.2026 and no summons had been served on him, making his unawareness genuine and beyond his control. The court prioritized substantial justice over technical procedural requirements, imposing a cost of Rs. 500/-, and scheduled the revision for hearing on 24.03.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 27-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 27-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 16/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot allowed an application to condone a one-year delay in filing a criminal revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The court found "sufficient cause" for the delay, holding that the applicant had no knowledge of the criminal case against him until 22.01.2026 and no summons had been served on him, making his unawareness genuine and beyond his control. The court prioritized substantial justice over technical procedural requirements, imposing a cost of Rs. 500/-, and scheduled the revision for hearing on 24.03.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case