2026:CGHC:7101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 912 of 2024 Prafful Mishra S/o Shri Baldavu Prasad Mishra, Aged About 42 Years R/o Agari Khurd, Post- Odiya Sanjha And District Bemetara (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Ku. Vidhi Mishra D/o Prafful Mishara, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Shrimati Sandhiya Mishra W/o Prafful Mishra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Shri Y.K. Mishra, Kamala Nivas, Isphat Nagar, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

2 - Vidhan Mishra S/o Prafful Mishra, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Shrimati Sandhiya Mishra W/o Prafful Mishra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Shri Y.K. Mishra, Kamala Nivas, Isphat Nagar, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate.

For Non-applicants : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

1. Ms. Pooja Loniya, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 521 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has preferred the present revision petition before this Court against the ex parte order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) whereby Rs. 2000/- per month each has been awarded towards maintenance to the non-applicants from the date of filing of application (Total Rs. 4000/- per month). It is further submitted that the present revision petition could not be filed within the prescribed period due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. After the passing of the impugned order, the applicant had to collect the relevant documents and make necessary financial arrangements for preferring the present revision before this Court, which consumed considerable time. The delay of 521 days in filing the revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to genuine difficulties and lack of legal awareness. The applicant has been diligently pursuing the matter and has every hope of success in the revision. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that the delay of 521 days in filing the present revision petition be kindly condoned.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant criminal revision.

4. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 521 days in preferring the present revision petition deserves to be condoned or not.

5. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which pr