##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5286

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 158 of 2026

Deendayal Banjare S/o Dilip Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. Gindola,

P.S.- Lawan, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

Smt. Renuka Banjare W/o Deendayal Banjare Aged About 36 Years R/o Vill.

Akaltara P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, Tah. Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-

Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Purnchand, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Digitally

signed by

ABHISHEK

ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Order on Board

SHRIVAS Date:

2026.02.02

11:16:41

30.01.2026

+0530

1. Heard Mr. Purnchand, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 01 of

2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring

the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned

order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) 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 34 days in

filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant was

unaware about option of filing a revision before this Court challenging the

impugned order. when the applicant contacted his council, he was informed

2

about the option of filing present revision upon which he managed some

nominal fees for filing the present case and contacted the present counsel

which took some time in filing the present revision. Thus, his inability to file the

revision within time cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or mala-fide

conduct, but is the result of unavoidable circumstances coupled with ignorance

of legal remedy. The delay, therefore, is bona fide and stands sufÏciently

explained. Accordingly, he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of

justice and proceed to hear the revision on merits.

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 34 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 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

3

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 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