1 / 5 2025:CGHC:58829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3018 of 2022 1 - Smt. Purnima Chandrakar President Of Siddhi Mata Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Village - Bisanpura, Gram Panchayat - Biranpur, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jyoti Chandrakar, Secretary Of Siddhi Mata Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Village - Bisanpura, Gram Panchayat - Biranpur Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sima Chandrakar Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat - Biranpur, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Atul Diwakar, Secretary Of Gram Panchayat - Biranpur, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Rukhamani Chandrakar, President Of Jay Maa Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh, Village - Bisanpur, Gram Panchayat- Biranpur, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Jagarbai Chandrakar, President Of Jay Maa Mahila Swa Sahayata Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.06 10:41:58 +0530 2 / 5 Samooh, Village - Bisanpur, Gram Panchayat- Biranpur, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. P.M. Shrivas, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Uday Pratap Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.5/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) and the trial court may kindly be directed to decide the revision on merits filed by the petitioners after hearing the both the parties. 2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against order dated 25.11.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (R), Kawardha, District- Kabeerdham, petitioners have preferred revision on 27.09.2021. He submits that order of Sub Divisional Officer was passed during Covid- 19 Pandemic period. Even the petitioners were not aware of passing of order and they got knowledge of the order passed by SDO only on 16.09.2021 and thereafter they obtained certified copy of the order and preferred revision immediately on 27.09.2021. He submits that Hon’ble 3 / 5 Supreme Court, considering the Covid -19 pandemic situation prevailing all over the country had passed an order on 10.01.2022 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the period prescribed for all other laws which prescribes period of limitation for institution of proceedings. He contended that the order of SDO dated 25.11.2020 and filing of revision on 27.09.2021 against order of SDO, come within the aforementioned period and, therefore, Collector committed error in rejecting application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is no proper explanation offered by petitioners. Hence, it be set aside and a direction be issued to Collector to consider revision on merits. 3. Learned counsel for respective respondents oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that no proper explanation has been offered by petitioners for condoning delay. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. From submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is appearing that order of Sub Divisional Officer is dated 25.11.2020. As per submission of counsel for the petitioners, against the order of SDO, revision is filed on 27.09.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering expiry of limitation period during Covid-19 Pandemic situation had passed order in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 and observed thus : “5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the 4 / 5 virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: x x x x x x III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 6. In the aforementioned facts of case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above and also considering the date of order passed by Sub Divisional Officer and filing of revision petition by the petitioners within the period as considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court , in the opinion of this Court, impunged order passed by the Addl. Collector is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly it is set aside. Consequent thereof, application under Section 5 of the 5 / 5 Limitation Act filed by the petitioners/revisioner herein is allowed. 7. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.5/Collector for considering the revision filed by the petitioners on merits. Considering that revision was filed in the year 2021, concerned Collector is directed to consider and decide revision expeditiously, in accordance with law, within a further period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen