1 CGHC010213872026 2026:CGHC:32178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 191 of 2026 Dubraj S/o Late Bhukha Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hardisand, Police Station And Post Seetapur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Lrs Of Bhukha Dead Through Through Collector, District- Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - Paluram S/o Rameshwar Aged About 38 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shyam Prasad S/o Rameshwar Aged About 27 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Shashi Kumar S/o Rameshwar Aged About 24 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sambhu S/o Rameshwar Aged About 21 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Rukmani W/o Rameshwar Aged About 50 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.29 11:34:34 +0530 2 6 - Bhuneshwar S/o Jagmohan Aged About 35 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Bhuwan S/o Jagmohan Aged About 32 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Sarweshwar S/o Jagmohan Aged About 30 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Subhash S/o Jagmohan Aged About 25 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Chandra Deo S/o Jagmohan Aged About 25 Years Caste Roniyar Vaisya, R/o Village Belgaon, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 11 - Dhuran Ram S/o Late Bhukha Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Hardisand, Police Station And Post Seetapur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 12 - Naihar Ram S/o Late Bhukha Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Hardisand, Police Station And Post Seetapur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 13 - Gajraj S/o Late Bhukha Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Hardisand, Police Station And Post Seetapur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 14 - Soharai Ram Dead Through Lrs- Lagin Bai Wd/o Late Soharai Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 157, Village And Post Pidiya, Tahsil Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 15 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For State : Mr. Animesh Verma, Dy. GA. 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. Heard on application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2026). 2. There is delay of 2426 days in filing of instant review petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment was passed by this Court on 04.09.2019 in Second Appeal No. 246/2002 (Paluram and others v. Bhukha (dead) and others), whereby this Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2002 and restored the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1991 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 25-A/1991. He further submits that the impugned judgment was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the petitioner came to know about it only recently on 21.05.2026, whereafter he immediately filed this review petition. He submits that notice was not served upon the petitioner (respondent therein) in the second appeal, thus, the delay in filing the review petition is bona fide and non-deliberate. Hence, he prays to condone the delay of 2,426 days and admit the case for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State is a formal party, however, the delay in filing the review petition is inordinate. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was not served upon the petitioner (respondent therein) in Second Appeal No. 246/2002. However, a perusal of the original record of the second appeal 4 reveals that notice was served upon the petitioner himself, but he refused to accept service, stating that "decree (by First Appellate Court) has been passed in his favour." Hence, the ground taken by the petitioner regarding non-service of notice is not sustainable. 7. The impugned judgment was passed by this Court on 04.09.2019, whereas the instant review petition was filed on 26.05.2026 after a delay of 2,426 days. 8. In the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and Others v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513, arising from a land acquisition dispute where the legal representatives of the deceased claimant sought to file an appeal with an inordinate delay of about 15 years, the High Court refused to condone the delay. On appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, emphasizing that merit alone cannot override gross negligence or lack of due diligence and that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone, and made followings observation with regard to limitation and delay in Paragraphs 17 to 21 as under:- “17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights. 18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramla, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd reported in AIR 5 1962 SC 361 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party. 19. In Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1935 PC 85, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351 wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363 where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and 6 ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation." 9. It is also a settled proposition of law that the doctrine of delay and laches and for that matter, statutes of limitation are statutes of repose and peace; there must be a defined lifespan during which a person must approach the Court for a remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty regarding the rights and obligations of the parties. 10. In the present case, the statutory period for filing a review petition has long since expired, placing a heavy burden on the petitioner to justify the inordinate delay of 2,426 days during the intervening period. However, the explanation offered for the delay in filing the instant review petition is not sustainable, as notice was duly served upon him in person. Therefore, having considered the inordinate delay without sufficient cause and the negligent conduct of the petitioner, particularly in responding to the notice sent to him, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 2,426 days in filing the review petition. 11. Hence, IA No.1/2026 - Application for condonation of delay is rejected. 12. Consequently, the Review Petition is dismissed. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay