2026:CGHC:18112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 530 of 2026 Hemlal S/o Dayalu Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Tendu Toha, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Quarter No. 60, Battalion, B.S.F., Panthi Chowk, Jammu And Kahsmir.

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Ranjita W/o Hemlal Gond Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sakreli, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Kumari Aarohi D/o Hemlal Gond Aged About 6 Years Through Mother (Legal Guardian ) Smt. Ranjita, Aged About 34, W/o Hemlal Gond, R/o Village Sakreli, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

21.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of

532 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 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 532 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the said delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, as the applicant is serving in the Border Security Force and is presently posted in Manipur, where he could not avail sufficient leave to attend to his legal matters or appear before the Court. Upon obtaining due permission from his higher authorities, the applicant promptly approached his counsel and filed the instant revision. 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 532 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.