The court held that inordinate delay in filing legal proceedings cannot be condoned based on vague pleas of ignorance of law or lack of funds; 'sufficient cause' requires demonstrating continuous diligence and specific circumstances that prevented an applicant from acting within the statutory limitation period.

Order on Board

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 695 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Hon’ble High Court being aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 749/2019, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month has been awarded, which is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the applicant was proceeded ex parte before the Family Court and the impugned order was obtained behind his back, and he came to know about the same only upon receipt of execution notice from the executing court, resulting in inordinate delay in filing the present revision, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to bona fide reasons, therefore, he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to hear and decide 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 695 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 Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legisla