2026:CGHC:2017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 169 of 2023 Jaleshwar S/o Late Dharamdas Gendle Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Mehna, Police Station Nandghat, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus

1. Smt. Sheetla Bai W/o Jaleshwawr Gendle Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mehna, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Jaleshwar Gandle Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sheetla Bai Wife Of Jaleshwar Gandle, R/o Village Mehna, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Hariom Rai and Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate.

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

2026.01.16

11:18:01 +0530

13.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Hariom Rai and Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 450 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 (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 450 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that during the pendency of 125 CRPC application, the applicant was dealt ex-parte on 26-07-2021, who was also represented earlier by the suit friend, who also did not represented and the ex-parte order has been passed and the applicant is not aware of the order and subsequently, the impugned order dated 10-08-2021 was passed and the same was came into the knowledge to the applicant in the month of January 2023 and he applied for the certified copy on 11-01-2023 and received on 17-01-2023 and he consulted his advocate and filed the instant revision on 08-02-2023. 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.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants 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 450 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. Learned counsel stresses that the applicant has not acted with due diligence and has failed to show that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control. It is also urged that the explanation furnished is vague and does not satisfactorily account for the long period of delay. The non-applicant 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 450 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 p