2026:CGHC:4231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 55 of 2024 Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Dhanwaram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Ganaud, P.S. Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Uttra Sahu W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Danganiya, P.S. Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Minor Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Rakesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Uttra Sahu, R/o Village Danganiya, P.S. Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Minor Shivam Sahu S/o Rakesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 16 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Uttra Sahu, R/o Village Danganiya, P.S. Gobranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated

28-11-2024 ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu and Mr. Rustam Sahu, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

23.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu and Mr. Rustam Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Shivali Dubey,, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 257 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that respondent No.1 has died during the pendency of present criminal revision. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 (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 257 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant was not aware of the legal proceedings and the remedy of filing a criminal revision and, due to the same, could not approach his counsel for a considerable period. Subsequently, when the applicant approached his local counsel, he was advised to file a criminal revision. Thereafter, the applicant applied for a certified copy of the impugned order and, upon receiving the same, has filed the present criminal revision before this Court. 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 submitted that she is not aware of the fact that respondent No.1 has died during he pendency of present criminal revision. She further 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 257 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 as 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 257 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 expla