##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5358

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 623 of 2024

Virbhan Singh Jangde @ Birbhan Singh Jangde S/o Shri Nohar Das

Jangde, Aged About 37 Years ( Wrongly Mention As 41 Years In The

Impugned Order Dated 31.01.2024 ) , R/o Village - Darri, Post Office -

Temari, Police Station - Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

... Applicant(s)

Digitaly

AKHILESH signed by

KUMAR AKHILESH

DEWANGANKUMAR

DEWANGAN

versus

Smt. Soniya Jangde W/o Shri Virbhan Singh Jangde Alias Birbhan Singh

Jangde, D/o Shri Hariprasad Patre, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village -

Darri, Post Office - Temari, Police Station - Nandghat , District - Bemetara

(C.G.), Present Address - Nawagaon Thelka, Police Station - Fastarpur,

District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Guru Prasad Kurre, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Also

heard Mr. Guru Prasad Kurre, learned counsel appearing for the

2

respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation

of delay of 25 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the

impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-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 25 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged

that the delay of 25 days occurred due to the petitioner’s financial crisis

and unemployment, which prevented him from arranging funds to file the

revision, upon managing the required amount and engaging counsel, the

revision was filed promptly, and the delay is bona fide. 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 25 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.

3

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.

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

is whether the delay of about 25 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 Basa