2026:CGHC:2018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 85 of 2023 Ravi Yadav S/o Chandradev Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Masjid Gali, Mohamand, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus

1. Smt. Parvati Yadav W/o Ravi Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Masjid Gali, Mahamand, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Kishan Yadav S/o Ravi Yadav Aged About 18 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Parvati Yadav, W/o Ravi Yadav, R/o Masjid Gali, Mahamand, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Krishna Yadav S/o Ravi Yadav Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Parvati Yadav, W/o Ravi Yadav, R/o Masjid Gali, Mahamand, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Applicant : None.

Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI KUMARI KUMARI Date: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

2026.01.16

11:18:01 +0530 Order on Board

13.01.2026

1. None appears on behalf of the present applicant to press this revision on repeated calls.

2. From perusal of the I.A No. 02/2023 which is an application for condonation of delay of 70 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

3. It appears that the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 (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 70 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant is poor and was facing severe financial constraints. Thus, his inability to file the revision within time cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or malafide conduct, but is the result of unavoidable circumstances coupled with poverty and ignorance of legal remedy. The delay, therefore, is bona fide and stands sufficiently explained. Accordingly, he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to hear the revision on merits.

4. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 70 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 t