Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
M/s. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCC No. 942 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Surfaraj Khan
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Singh
The court allowed condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, affirming the importance of sufficient cause in legal processes.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, following an order dated 26.04.2024 regarding Review Petition No.35 of 2019. The applicant initially preferred a Supreme Court petition instead of filing for restoration, leading to a delay of 455 days. The court finds sufficient cause for condonation and restores the review petition. The delay in filing the application for restoration is hereby condoned. Accordingly, MCC No.942 of 2025 is allowed, and the review petition is restored to its original number.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's rationale for allowing restoration of the review petition. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 2. final decision to restore the review petition. (Para 9) |
Order on Board
15/09/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after passing of order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A/1), the applicant instead of preferring an application for restoration of review petition before this Court, had preferred a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C ) No.3529 of 2025. On 07.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order by observing that ‘the remedy of the petitioner is to apply for restoration of the Review Petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution.’
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicant and contended that there is delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under :
“ Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , allows an appeal or application to be admitted after the prescribed period has expired, provided the appellant or applicant demonstrates a "sufficient cause" for the delay to the satisfaction of the court. The court has the discretion to condone the delay if the reason provided meets this standard of a sufficient cause, though the term isn't explicitly defined and is interpreted liberally to serve justice.”
6. On due consideration, for the reasons assigned in the application and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. Delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition is hereby condoned.
7. Also heard on application for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of
2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 for want of prosecution.
8. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of
2019.
9. Accordingly, MCC No.942 of 2025 is allowed. Registry is directed to restore Review Petition No.35 of 2019 to its original number.
