1 2025:CGHC:51310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3127 of 2025 1 - Ganesh Ram S/o Chhabilal Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Surajpur, Thana - Saja, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Loknath S/o Deendayal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sonchiraiya, Thana Khamhariya, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. This CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for restoration of CRMP No. 872/2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CRMP No. 872/2024 was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 6.08.2024, that unintentional and bonafide mistake the counsel of the petitioner 2 failed to appear in the matter, therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submitted that the office of counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to trace the matter in the cause list from the website of the High Court and therefore the said matter has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court for want of prosecution. 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. 872/2024 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 3 06.08.2024 by this Court, i.e., after lapse of 1 year and 2 months. It appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petition as such the petition is barred by 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