2026:CGHC:2015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 303 of 2023 Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Manmohan Agarwal Aged About 36 Years R/o Janta Colony, Lakholi, Near Dental Clinic, Ward No. 31, Police Station -

Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus Smt Shikha Agarwal W/o Amit Kumar Agarwal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Ramadhin Marg, Opposite Union Bank, Police Station - Kotwali, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

For Non-Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

Digitally signed by 13.01.2026 PREETI PREETI KUMARI KUMARI Date:

2026.01.16 1. Mr. Ashish Gangwani, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that

11:18:01 +0530 he has issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the non-applicant.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 22 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 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 22 days in filing the revision.

Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant instructed his trial Court counsel to make arrangements for filing the instant revision petition before this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, he applied for the certified copy of the impugned order and other relevant documents on 24-11-2022, which he received on 28-11-2022. However, thereafter, due to an inadvertent reason, he misplaced the file, which he discovered on 28-02-2023. Subsequently, the applicant contacted his present counsel on 05-03-2023 to prefer the instant revision petition. Thereafter, the counsel took some time to prepare the petition, and consequently, a delay of 22 days occurred in filing the petition. 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. 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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant 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 22 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 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 cour