2026:CGHC:7048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 209 of 2026 Swati W/o Chandramani Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Nagri, P.S. Nagri, At Present Address- Etar, P.S. Gatapar, Tahsil Khairagarh, District K.C.G. (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus Chandramani Sahu S/o Late Vedprakash Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagri, P.S. Nagri, District Dhamtari C.G.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

1. Mr. K.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 118 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 order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon Camp Court Khairagarh, whereby her claim was dismissed by the learned Family Court concerned on the ground that she has capable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the applicant is a housewife and was not aware of the legal proceedings or the requirement to file a criminal revision. When she later approached her counsel, she was advised to file the present criminal revision. Thereafter, she applied for a certified copy of the impugned order (Annexure A-1), and upon receiving the same, she promptly filed the instant revision. The delay of 118 days in filing the present revision is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide, and therefore, it is prayed that the same be kindly condoned in the interest of justice.

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 118 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 prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay withou