2026:CGHC:7849 NAFR KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 229 of 2026 Roshan Kurre S/o Ramlal Kurre Aged About 21 Years Occupation- Agriculture/ Laborer R/o Village- Mudiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham C.G.

... Applicant(s)

versus Kavita Kurrre W/o Roshan Kurre Aged About 24 Years Village- Mudiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham C.G., Present Address- C/o Nani Sawana Bai, Village- Mudiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham C.G.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

12.02.2026

1. Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of

105 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 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.), whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-

applicant and amount of Rs. 2000/- has been awarded towards maintenance to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application. It is further submitted that the applicant is a rustic and illiterate villager having no proper knowledge of court procedures. He was under the bona fide impression that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the local counsel would challenge any adverse order before this Hon’ble High Court. However, upon contacting his counsel in the month of January to know the status of the case, he came to know for the first time that the impugned order had not been challenged. Thereafter, he immediately obtained the certified copies and relevant documents and approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the present criminal revision. It is further submitted that the delay of about 105 days in filing the revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond his control, and therefore the same deserves to be 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 105 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 o