1 2026:CGHC:25324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 90 of 2026 Ramsai S/o Late Katua Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mukundpur, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner. versus 1 - Smt. Anuradha D/o Late Mohan W/o Nandlal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mukundpur, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate. For Res No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (IA No. 2/2026). 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Misc. Civil Suit No.102/2024, whereby, the learned Second District Judge has dismissed the Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.06.23 10:20:04 +0530 2 application filed by the applicant under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, which was filed with delay of about 12 years. Further, the present appeal has been filed with delay of 77 days. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the father of the appellant, late Katua, had filed Civil Suit No. 20A/2006 before the Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur, which was dismissed on 16.05.2008. Thereafter, against the said judgment and decree, Civil Appeal No. 18A/2012 was filed before the Second District Judge, Ambikapur. The said first appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.06.2012. She further submits that the father of the appellant was suffering from an incurable disease since 2012, therefore, he could not present the case before the concerned Court. Further, his counsel also did not represent the case, due to which the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. She further submits that the appellant and his father were residing separately, due to which the appellant was not aware of the pendency of the aforesaid appeal. He came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for the first time after 12 years, after which he filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC before the learned Second District Judge which was registered on 31.08.2024 for the restoration and rehearing of the first appeal. However, the same was dismissed by the impugned order on 02.12.2025. She further submits that the appellant is a poor farmer, the sole breadwinner of his family, and is still in possession of the subject land. Therefore, the delay of 77 days occurred in filing the present appeal. Hence, she prays to condone the delay and hear on admission of the appeal. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the State is a formal party in the case. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed with the appeal, impugned order as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 6. The main ground raised by the appellant is that the delay of 77 days occurred in filing the instant appeal because of a crunch of funds, as he is a poor farmer and the sole breadwinner of his family. 7. Further, when a specific question was put to the counsel for the appellant as to why a delay of about 12 years occurred in filing the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC before the first Appellate Court, she submitted the facts that have been stated in the preceding paragraph. 8. As per the impugned order, the original civil suit filed by the father of the appellant was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.05.2008. Thereafter, first appeal was preferred, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.06.2012. Subsequently, as per the appellant, he obtained knowledge of the dismissal of the case in the month of October 2022, i.e., after more than 10 years. Thereafter, the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC was filed which was registered on 31.08.2024. The reason stated for such a huge delay is that the father of the appellant was suffering from an incurable disease since 2012, but as per the impugned order, the appellant has neither proved the fact of which incurable disease his father was suffering from, nor stated when his father died. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, the huge delay in filing the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC before the Court below, and further considering that a delay of 77 days has occurred before this Court as well, that too without any sufficient or cogent reason/explanation, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal, particularly 4 looking to the delay of more than 10 years in filing the application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC before the learned Second District Judge. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the application for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed. Consequently, the instant appeal is also dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 12. No order as to cost(s) Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay