2026:CGHC:16094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 473 of 2026 Satish Samalia S/o Late Gurudayal Samalia, Aged About 48 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Phase-02, Sai Mandir, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Priti Samalia W/o Satish Samalia Aged About 38 Years Through- Mannulal Sarathi, Near Pani Tanki, Emaam Nagar, Near Rupesh Kirana Stores, Mathpurena, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Gauri Samalia D/o Satish Samalia Aged About 15 Years (Minor) Through Non- Applicant 1 (Natural Guardian Mother) Through- Mannulal Sarathi, Near Pani Tanki, Emaam Nagar, Near Rupesh Kirana Stores, Mathpurena, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Harsh Samalia S/o Satish Samalia Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Through Non- Applicant 1 (Natural Guardian Mother) Through- Mannulal Sarathi, Near Pani Tanki, Emaam Nagar, Near Rupesh Kirana Stores, Mathpurena, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

08.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 52 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 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 52 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the delay of 52 days in filing the present Revision Application has occurred due to the time consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter in preparing and filing the revision, and the same is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide in nature. 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 and 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 52 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 justifi