JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri K.J. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.J. Choudhari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Shri V.H. Dighe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 7. The present petitioner approached to the learned Revisional Court, since he was dissatisfied with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed dismissing his complaint. The said complaint was dismissed in December, 2008. 2. Some proceedings were also filed in the meanwhile before this court which were ultimately withdrawn by the present petitioner in order to approach before the Revisional Court. 3. The petitioner approached before the Revisional Court challenging the correctness of order dismissing his complaint. The said Revision was barred by 1410 days. Since it was barred by limitation, an application for condonation of said delay was filed by the present petitioner. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 65 of 2012. In paragraph 4 of the application, the petitioner has specifically raised a ground that in view of ill health of his father he was unable to attend the court proceedings, and therefore, that prevented him from filing the Revision. The other ground was about the pendency of the Writ Petition before this court. 4. The application was contested by the present respondents. 5. The learned Revisional court passed an order on 15.7.2013, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Revisional Court has not at all considered the plea raised by the present petitioner in respect of the ill health of his father. He took me through the reasoning part of the order impugned. Even the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Shri D.J. Choudhari also fairly submitted that there is no such consideration in the order impugned. The Revisional Court has only considered the aspect of pendency of the matter before this court. 7. Once a particular plea is specifically raised in the application, which according to the petitioner caused the delay in filing the Revision Application, it was expected from the learned Revisional Court to bestow a consideration on the said aspect and ought to have decided that particular issue in accordance with law. Non consideration of the said issue has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Non consideration of the said issue has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this court has to exercise its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the present petitioner. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The order, dated 15.7.2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 65 of 2012 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Revision is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 65 of 2012 is restored to file of the Sessions Judge, Beed. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge, Beed is directed to consider the Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 65 of 2012 afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner as well as the respondents and shall decide the said application in accordance with law. (iv) Since the matter is old one, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the said application within a period of two months from the date when the parties shall appear before the Sessions Judge. (v) Both the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner as well as the respondents will appear before the Sessions Judge on 4.8.2014. (vi) With these observations, the present Writ Petition is allowed. (vii) The petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- with the Legal Aid Committee. (viii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition allowed