2026:CGHC:4234 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 935 of 2023 Babluram S/o- Raju Dhondhe Aged About 40 Years R/o- Mehta Nagar- House No. -1/17, Tehsil And P.S.- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-

Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Rajeshwari W/o- Babluram Dhondhe Aged About 36 Years R/o- Village- Khaira, P.S.- Nandghat, Tehsil- Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

2 - Sakshi D/o- Babluram Dhondhe Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Rageshwari, R/o- Village- Khaira, P.S.-

Nandghat, Tehsil- Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : None.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

23.01.2026

1. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this revision on repeated calls, when the matter was called out.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 26 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

3. It transpires from the pleadings made in the present revision that the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 has been assailed by way of the present revision. Furthermore, from perusal of I.A. No. 1/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision, it transpires that the applicant could not approach this Court within the period of limitation and that there is a delay of about 26 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it is urged in the said application that after passing of the impugned order, the appellant contacted his counsel and was advised to prefer a revision/appeal before this Court and to obtain the certified copy of the impugned order. Accordingly, the appellant applied for the certified copy on 31.07.2023. it is further urged that the appellant is a daily wage employee and due to financial constraints and difficulty in frequently travelling to Bilaspur to coordinate with his counsel and supply documents, there occurred a delay in filing the present revision/appeal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the appellant. Accordingly, he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to hear the revision on merits.

4. 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 26 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.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant criminal revision.

6. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 26 days in preferring the present revision petition deserves to be condoned or not.

7. 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 l