2026:CGHC:11720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 357 of 2026 Smt. Hanita Mehar W/o Sanjay Pathak D/o Shri Padmanram Mandai Aged About 32 Years Presently Residing At Village- Panduka Tehsil-

Chura District- Gariybandh Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant(s)

versus Sanjay Pathak S/o Late Shri Guharam Pathak Aged About 42 Years R/o AKD KUE H WMI AAL NRES G H AN DsAKD iKU i E gg Hn WM iteI a AA dL l NR Eby S G yH AN Village- Labhandi Police Station - Telibandha Tehsil- And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

11.03.2026

1. Heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of

117 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 26.07.2025 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 117 days in filing the revision. Explaining the delay, it was urged that the applicant is an uneducated lady and was not aware of the legal remedies available after passing of the impugned order. Further, during the said period, the mother of the applicant was suffering from age- related ailments and was hospitalized, due to which the applicant had to take care of her and after obtaining proper legal advice and consulting with family members, the applicant approached the counsel and some reasonable time was consumed in studying the case and preparing the present criminal 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 117 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 condon