2026:CGHC:2013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 360 of 2023 Vishnu @ Sona Tamrakar S/o. Shivkumar Tamrakar Aged About 33 Years R/o. Shivam Metal Madan Road Pali, Thana And Tahsil Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Ragini Tamrakar W/o Vishnu @ Sona Tamrakar Aged About 30 Years D/o Late Mukund Barwah R/o Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Thana Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.

Preeti Yadav, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

13.01.2026

1.

Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 274 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned ABHISHEK order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure A-1) has been assailed by way of the SHRIVAS

ABHISHEK

SHRIVAS

Date: 2026.01.16

12:02:46 +0530

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 274 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that due to lack of knowledge for proceeding of Criminal Revision as well as filing of limitation of Revision petition and the applicant not contacted to his counsel. The applicant is not aware about the process of law along with filing the Revision petition as well as limitation. Thus, his inability to file the revision within time cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or mala-fide 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.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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 274 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. It is further argued that the reasons assigned by the applicant, namely, lack of knowledge for proceeding of Criminal Revision as well as filing of limitation of Revision petition and the applicant not contacted to his counsel, do not constitute sufficient cause in the eye of law. Poverty or ignorance of law, it is submitted, cannot be pleaded as a justification for circumventing statutory provisions. It is also urged that the explanation furnished is vague and does not satisfactorily account for the long period of delay. The respondent, 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 274 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 "sufficien