1 2025:CGHC:51827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3183 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Golchha S/o Umed Lal Golchha Aged About 46 Years R/o Sudharma Vihar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhavya Construction Through Its Partner Gourav Baradiya 2 - Gourav Baradiya S/o Shri Champalal Baradiya R/o Kachahari Chowk, Beside Suman Hotel, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. This CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for restoration of CRMP No. 69 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CRMP No. 69 of 2024 was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 28.08.2024 on the defaults pointed out by the Registry of this Court and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant 2 weeks’ time to remove the defaults 2 but the same could not be cured within time due to bonafide reasons and inadvertence without any deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 5. The petitioner has filed the present CRMP for restoration of CRMP No. 69 of 2024 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the Court order dated 28.08.2024 by this Court, i.e., after lapse of about 1 year. It appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petition as such the petition is barred by 3 delay and latches and is not liable to be maintained. 6. In view of the above, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima