##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20178

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 602 of 2026

Smt. Hemkumari W/o- Rajesh Kumar Aged About 45 Years R/o- Ward

No.41, Rani Laxmi Bai Chowk, Kelabadi, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

Rajesh Kumar Kishan Chand Aged About 54 Years R/o- Qtr No. 14/a,

Street No. 13, Sector-04, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) (Working At Bhilai

Steel Plant)

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.04 . 2026

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation

of delay of 90 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

preferred the instant criminal revision before this Hon’ble Court, which is

pending for its kind consideration, however, there has been a slight delay

in filing the present revision on account of paucity of funds and the time

RAHUL

consumed in collecting all relevant documents pertaining to the case. It is

DEWANGAN

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

2

further submitted that the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate,

but bona fide in nature and occurred due to circumstances beyond the

control of the applicant. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the

present revision in the interest of justice and further be pleased 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 90 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 "sufÏcient 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

3

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 OfÏcer [(2013) 14

SCC 81] while rejecting an application for

condonation of delay for lack of sufÏcient

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 “sufÏcient 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

sufÏcient 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

4

utter disregard to the legislature.”

14. Therefore, we are of the considered

opinion th