##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5360

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 779 of 2024

Smt. Ramsheela Aditya W/o Shri Ramkhilawan Aged About 52 Years

R/o Baloda, Present R/o Kharaud Manjhapara, Ward No. 08, Tahsil 7

Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

AKHILESH D sii gg nit ea dl by y ... Applicant(s)

KUMAR AKHILESH

DEWANGANKUMAR

DEWANGAN

versus

Ramkhilawan Aditya W/o Shri Ramsai Katakwar Aged About 54 Years

R/o Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.),

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A.

No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 53

days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the

2

impugned order dated 05.02.2024 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 53 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged

that the delay of 52 days occurred due to the applicant’s old age, poor

financial condition, ill-health, and the fact that she lives alone, which

prevented her from approaching her counsel immediately after the

Family Court’s order. 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 and 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 53 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

3

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

4

condonation of delay. In case there was no

sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to

approach the court on time condoning the

delay without any justification, putting any

condition whatsoever, amounts to passing

an order in violation of the statutory

provisions and it tantamounts to showing

utter disregard to the legislature.”

14. Therefore, we are of the considered

opinion that the Hig