2026:CGHC:3030 KUNAL DEWANGAN NAFR Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 103 of 2026 Santosh Suryavanshi S/o Shri Dilip Suryavanshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Leprosy Hospital Road, Ward No. 46, Basantpur, District -

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus Hemlata @ Himanshi Suryavanshi D/o Mr. Mangal Bhave Aged About 30 Years R/o New Sahu Para, Near Deepak Kirana Stores, Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

19.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 608 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that due to a bona fide miscommunication between the applicant and his counsel, the applicant remained unaware of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court. Upon coming to know about the said judgment, the applicant promptly applied for certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree along with other relevant documents. Immediately after receiving the said documents, the applicant filed the present petition before this Court without any further delay. Accordingly, the delay of 608 days in filing the instant appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. The delay caused in filing the present revision is unintentional and bona fide in nature. 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 608 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 "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 sufficient 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 “sufficient 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 to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay w