1 2025:CGHC:47096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 942 of 2025 M/s. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shaik Shamsalam Vali, Age About 40 Yeare, S/o Shri Shaik Babu, R/o 12-1-1-67/1, Shalem Nagar, Near Railway Station, Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, Registered Office At M. No. 8-2-502/1/a, Jivi Towers, Road No. 7 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, Present Corporate Office- Village- Ghodari, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.16 10:51:18 +0530 2 filing application for restoration of review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after passing of order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A/1), the applicant instead of preferring an application for restoration of review petition before this Court, had preferred a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C ) No.3529 of 2025. On 07.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order by observing that ‘the remedy of the petitioner is to apply for restoration of the Review Petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution.’ 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicant and contended that there is delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under : “Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows an appeal or application to be admitted after the prescribed period has expired, provided the appellant or applicant demonstrates a "sufficient cause" for the delay to the satisfaction of the court. The court has the discretion to condone the delay if the reason provided meets this standard of a sufficient cause, though the term isn't explicitly defined and is interpreted liberally to serve justice.” 3 6. On due consideration, for the reasons assigned in the application and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. Delay of 455 days in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of review petition is hereby condoned. 7. Also heard on application for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of 2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 for want of prosecution. 8. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for restoration of Review Petition No.35 of 2019. 9. Accordingly, MCC No.942 of 2025 is allowed. Registry is directed to restore Review Petition No.35 of 2019 to its original number. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant