2026:CGHC:4227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 240 of 2024 Trilochan Lahare S/o Terasram Lehre Aged About 34 Years R/o Sohagpur, Police Chowki, Beladula, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Gayatri W/o Trilochan Lehre Aged About 28 Years R/o Sohagpur, Current Address - Durumgarh, Police Chowki Beladula, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

2 - Ku. Mansi D/o Trilochan Lahare Aged About 4 Years Minor, Through Mother Gayatri, W/o Trilochan Lahare, Natural Guardian, R/o Sohagpur, Current Address - Durumgarh, Police Chowki Beladula, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Richa Sahu holding the brief of Ms.

Sareena Khan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

23.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Richa Sahu holding the brief of Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 3 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 755 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 (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 755 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant had no knowledge of the prescribed period of limitation for filing the revision, and consequently, a delay of 755 days has occurred in filing the instant revision. 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 755 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 755 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 Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of s