2026:CGHC:9550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 242 of 2026 Anand Kumar Gupta S/o Murari Lal Gupta, Aged About 36 Years R/o Bus Stand Near Punjab National Bank, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, Tehsil Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Applicant versus

1 - Smt. Anjali Gupta W/o Anand Kumar Gupta, Aged About 32 Years Currently Residing At 27 Kholi Vikasnagar Bilaspur P.S. Civil Lines, Distt.

Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Kumari Kashvi Gupta D/o Anand Kumar Gupta Aged About 19 Months, Currently Residing At 27 Kholi Vikasnagar Bilaspur P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

24.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 769 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.09.2023 RAHUL DEWANGAN and that the delay in filing the same has occurred due to bona fide

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

and unavoidable circumstances. It is submitted that for nearly two years prior to the filing of the application under Section 144 of the BNSS by respondent No. 1, the applicant and his family were making sincere efforts to amicably resolve the matrimonial dispute and were cohabiting together in a rented house at Bilaspur. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, both parties resumed cohabitation and made earnest efforts to reconcile and resolve their differences till 29.01.2026. It is contended that the applicant was under a bona fide belief that the dispute would be settled and therefore did not immediately pursue the remedy of revision. Additionally, some time was consumed in obtaining certified copies of the impugned order due to non-availability of certified copy tickets. Thus, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred on account of genuine circumstances, and therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision be kindly condoned 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 769 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,