1 2025:CGHC:20546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2270 of 2025 1 - Gurdeb Singh (Wrongly Mentioned As Gurudev Singh) S/o Late Lal Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Amalidih Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Through Board President Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Commissiner Raipur Division Raipur C.G. 4 - Mehtarin Bai W/o Beersingh (Wrongly Mentioned As Veersingh) Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Sarora, Tahsil Dharsiva, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 Order on Board 05.05.2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the courts below from the respondent authorities, in the interest of justice. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 23.10.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. RN/14/R-B-121 /245/2024, and restore and remand Revenue Appeal No. 158 A-06/2017-2018 to respondent no. 3 to decide the same on its own merits, in the larger interest of justice. 10.3. Any other relief (s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 2) in Case No. RN/14/R-B- 121/245/2024 and the order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur (Respondent No. 3), whereby the petitioner's application for restoration of Revenue Appeal No.158 A-06/2017-2018 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the father of 3 petitioner, Late Lal Singh, filed Revenue Appeal No.158 A- 06/2017-2018 against revenue proceedings before Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner, Raipur). Due to his sudden demise on April 22, 2018, and his absence, the appeal was dismissed on December 10, 2018, for want of prosecution. Since the petitioner, a driver by profession, had entrusted the matter to a power of attorney holder, the attorney's authority ceased after Lal Singh's death, resulting in the attorney's inability to appear before the Commissioner. Upon learning of the dismissal, the petitioner filed an application on May 1, 2019, for restoration of the revenue appeal. However, Respondent No. 3 dismissed the application on August 21, 2024, citing that it was filed beyond the one-month limitation period and no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the restoration application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the non appearance of the party was not deliberate and the same is due to death of father of the petitioner. He further submits that both Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 dismissed the application of restoration and revision on the ground of delay and of non filing of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act whereas the respondent ought not to have gone into technicality and could have taken liberal 4 approach to decide the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has right to get his case decided on merits. He goes on to submit that delay can be condoned even without a formal application if sufficient cause is explained in the original application. The respondents’ decision on the application for restoration of appeal filed by the petitioner disregarded this said principle, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to decide the same on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the respondents and requires no interference of this Hon’ble Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. This is an admitted position that due to Lal Singh's sudden demise, the appeal was dismissed on December 10, 2018, for want of prosecution. The present petitioner, being a driver by profession, had entrusted the matter to a power of 5 attorney holder, whose authority ceased after Lal Singh's death. Consequently, the attorney could not appear before the Commissioner. Upon learning of the dismissal, the petitioner filed a restoration application on May 1, 2019. However, Respondent No. 3 dismissed it on August 21, 2024, citing a delay beyond the one-month limitation period and the absence of a condonation of delay application. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay is plausible, genuine, bona fide and supported the peculiar facts of the present case. The demise of the original appellant i.e. father of the present petitioner and the resulting termination of authority of power of attorney constitute sufficient cause for delay in seeking restoration of the said appeal. The petitioner, a driver by profession, was not deliberately negligent and took steps to restore the appeal once he became aware of its dismissal. 10. It is well settled that a litigant should not be denied a hearing on the merits due to procedural technicalities when sufficient cause for delay is shown, especially where the delay is neither malafide nor grossly negligent. 6 11. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the petition and deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated 23.10.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 and order (Annexure-P/3) dated 21.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3. Further, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the competent respondent authority. The concerned respondent authority is directed to consider and decide the said application, as well as the prayer for restoration of the appeal, strictly on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the earlier orders. 12.With these observation(s) and direction(s), this instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA