2026:CGHC:2009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 503 of 2023 Manoj S/o. Moharsai Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Nagaridih, P.S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Baharteen Nirala W/o. Manoj Aged About 27 Years At Present Resident of Bade Seepat, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharouda, Resident of Village Nagaridih, P.S.

And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

13.01.2026

1.

Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A.

No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 106 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 (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 106 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant is poor person and he was not knowing about the proceeding of the law and to file ABHISHEK SHRIVAS criminal revision and when the applicant approached his counsel, then the

ABHISHEK

SHRIVAS

Date: 2026.01.16

12:02:46 +0530

counsel advised to file criminal revision, thereafter, he has preferred the instant criminal revision. 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.

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 106 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 Cou