##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5356

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 1184 of 2024

Ramratan Jaiswal S/o Jaishankar Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o

Budgahan Thana Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

... Applicant(s)

versus

Smt. Dileshwari Dansena W/o Ramratan Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years

R/o Bade Dumarpali, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Umesh Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Umesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also

heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on

I.A. No. 02 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of

287 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the

2

impugned order dated 03.10.2023 has been assailed by way of the

present revision. It is contended that the applicant could not approach

this Court within the period of limitation and that there is a delay of

about 287 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged

that the delay has been occurred due to the applicant’s lack of legal

knowledge, as he could not approach an Advocate in time. Accordingly,

he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed

to hear the revision on merits.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the

applicant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for not

preferring the revision within the prescribed statutory period. It is

contended that a delay of about 287 days is inordinate and cannot be

brushed aside lightly, as condonation of such prolonged delay defeats

the very object of the law of limitation, which is to ensure certainty and

finality in litigation. It is further argued that the reasons assigned by the

applicant lack of knowledge for proceeding of Criminal Revision as well

as filing of limitation of revision petition. The respondent, therefore,

prays that the application for condonation of delay be rejected, and

consequently the revision petition itself be dismissed as barred by

limitation.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also

perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant

criminal revision.

3

5. The primary question that arises for consideration before this

Court is whether the delay of about 287 days in preferring the present

revision petition deserves to be condoned or not.

6. 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

4

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 i