2026:CGHC:2011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 397 of 2023 Smt. Kapeel W/o Kaleshwar, D/o Shivram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-

Jaipur, P.S. Darima, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District-Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kaleshwar S/o Bali Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Puhputra, P.S.

Lakhanpur, District-Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

13.01.2026

1.

Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A.

No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 73 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 (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 73 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant has been deserted by the respondent and has no independent source of income. After ABHISHEK rejection of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought SHRIVAS

ABHISHEK

SHRIVAS

Date: 2026.01.16

12:02:46 +0530

legal advice from the counsel who appeared before the Family Court and was advised to challenge the impugned order before this Hon’ble Court. In the course of taking such advice and initiating the proceedings, a delay of a few days occurred, which is bona fide and attributable to inadvertent circumstances. Thus, her inability to file the revision within time cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or malafide conduct, but is the result of unavoidable circumstances coupled aforesaid fact. 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.

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 73 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. Th