1 2025:CGHC:71 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3477 of 2024 1 - Lileshwar Ram Kurrey S/o Shri Saheb Ram Kurrey Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Khairidihi, P.S. Daundilohara, Revenue And Civil District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Saheb Ram Kurrey S/o Shri Lohku Ram Kurrey Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Khairidihi, Police Station Daundilohara, Revenue And Civil District Balod Chhattisgarh 3 - Bajarhin Bai W/o Shri Saheb Ram Kurrey Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khairidihi, Police Station Daundilohara, Revenue And Civil District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhumika Kurrey D/o Shri Saheb Ram Kurrey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khairidihi, Police Station Daundilohara, Revenue And Civil District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Phirtu Ram S/o Shri Bhagela Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khairidihi, Police Station Daundilohara, Revenue And Civil District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pritibala Kurrey W/o Shri Lileshwar Kurrey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Aamapara, Police Station Balod, Revenue And Civil District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. This CRMP has been filed for restoration of CRR No. 168 of 2014 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2021. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners inquired about the status of the case, approached the appearing counsel then the counsel inquired about the status on 23.10.2024 and found that the case has already been dismissed on 26.02.2021 for want of prosecution. Thereafter the counsel had intimated the petitioners for filing application for restoration of CRR No. 168/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court. He further contended that the delay caused is unintentional and bonafide. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 3 6. The expression 'sufficient cause' in section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay, whereas in the instant case the petitioner has filed present CRMP with a delay of 1374 days and it appears that there is gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner. 7. This Court is of the opinion that there is no bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner for condonation of delay, and the Counsel for the petitioner has not provided the sufficient cause and cogent reason for filing the present petition with delay of 1374 days, specially, when this Court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution. As such, the petition is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained. 8. In view of the same, I.A. No. 01/2024 stands rejected as well as the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima