2026:CGHC:11977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 358 of 2026 Janardan Singh Patel S/o Shivmurat Singh Patel Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Bidar, Post - Rajkhand, Police Station And Tehsil -

Duddhi, District - Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh.

... Applicant(s)

KUNAL DEWANGAN versus Digitally signed by KUNAL Hriti Patel W/o Janardan Singh Patel Aged About 23 Years Resident Of DEWANGAN Village Gandhinagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Rohan, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

12.03.2026

1. Mr. Rohan, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 164 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has preferred the present revision petition before this Court against the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.), whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and amount of Rs. 3000/- has been awarded towards maintenance to the non- applicant. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the present revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. It is submitted that the applicant, being a resident of District Sonbhadra (U.P.), had to arrange certified copies of the impugned order and other relevant documents and thereafter obtain proper legal advice, which consumed considerable time. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person of limited means and was facing financial and personal difficulties, due to which the revision could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It is also submitted that the delay has occurred due to bona fide and procedural reasons and not due to any negligence on the part of the applicant and that no prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant if the delay is condoned, whereas the applicant would suffer irreparable loss if the same is not condoned.

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 164 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