The discretion to condone delay under the law of limitation must be exercised judiciously upon demonstrating 'sufficient cause'; ignorance of law or illness, when factually inconsistent with a party's conduct, cannot excuse inordinate delay or revive a petition dismissed as 'not pressed'.

NAFR

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. The present writ appeal filed by the writ appellant who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, against the impugned order dated 16-10-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.10078/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed as not pressed by the counsel and the review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 16-12-2025.

2. The present writ appeal is barred by 73 days and an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal (I.A. No.01/2026) has also been filed in the writ appeal.

3. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal.

4. The writ appellant explained reasons for delay that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 16-10-2025 without granting liberty to the writ petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The issue of termination of services of the petitioner was involved in the writ petition. The petitioner filed review petition/application for review of the order dated 16-10-2025 to the extent of grant of liberty to avail the remedy of statutory appeal, but the review application of the petitioner has also been disposed of on 16-12-2025 in chamber.

5. It is also explained in the application that the petitioner was suffering from persistent illness with symptoms of typhoid and underwent prolonged medical treatment for more than a month and due to his weakness he was unable to move for filing of the present writ appeal. Further, the petitioner was unaware about the dismissal of the review application in chamber, subsequently he got information of its dismissal and applied for certified copy of the order passed on the review application which has been supplied to him on 20-01-2026 and thereafter, he filed the instant writ appeal on 13-02-2026 which is delayed by 73 days.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the writ petition, WPS No.10078/2019 was argued by Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate who was representing the petitioner. On 16-10-2025 after primarily consideration on the facts of the case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner not pressed the writ petition and on his submission the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, Review Petition No.425/2025 was filed by the petitioner on 10-11-2025 by changing his previous counsel and assigning the present counsel, Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and her associates. The said review petition was put up in the chamber as provided under Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 and the same was dismissed on 16-12-2025 holding that no case is made out for review of the order dated 16-10-2025.

When the order was passed on 16-10-2025 in the writ petition, the counsel representing the petitioner was present and on his submission the writ petition was dismissed/disposed of as not pressed. It has not reflected that he prays for any liberty to avail statutory alternative remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner has changed his counsel and the review application has been filed by another counsel who was not present at the time when his writ petition was decided. Filing of the review petition changing their counsel by the petitioner who was not present at the time of hearing of writ petition is deprecated by the Hon’b