##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5379

NAFR

KUNAL

DEWANGAN

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Digitally

signed by

KUNAL

DEWANGAN

CRR No. 539 of 2025

Sohail Hussain S/o Khurshid Hussain Aged About 25 Years R/o Subhash

Chowk, Infront Of Church, Keshkal. District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Kanij Fatima W/o Sohail Hussain Aged About 24 Years R/o Panchshil

Nagar, Charoda, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Samayara D/o Sohail Hussain Aged About 9 Years Minor

Represented Through Her Mother Kanij Fatima, R/o Panchshil Nagar,

Charoda, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : None.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1. I.A. No. 02 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay

of 427 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. By way this petition, the applicant challenged the impugned order

dated 01.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Family Court,

Durg. It transpires from the record that the applicant could not approach

2

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

delay of about 427 days in filing the present revision petition. Explaining

the delay, it has been urged in the application that the non-applicant-wife

had earlier preferred Criminal Revision No. 1378/2024 seeking

enhancement of maintenance, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

vide order dated 10.12.2024, issued notice on I.A. No.1 (application for

condonation of delay). It is stated that only upon receipt of notice in the

said proceedings did the present applicant come to know about the

impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. It is further pleaded

that thereafter the applicant required some time to arrange financial

resources for filing the present revision and also to engage appropriate

counsel to represent him. On these grounds, it is contended that the delay

in filing the present revision is bona fide, unintentional and not deliberate,

and therefore deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. I have perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring

the instant criminal revision and the documents available on record.

4. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court

is whether the delay of about 427 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 "sufÏcient cause" which means

an adequate and enough reason which

3

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 OfÏcer [(2013) 14

SCC 81] while rejecting an application for

condonation of delay for lack of sufÏcient

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 “sufÏcient 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