1 CGHC010454982024 2026:CGHC:32988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 60 of 2025 Sadanand Prauha S/o Shri Anand Prauha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Sarma, Behind Panchayat, Jalke Road Korbi, Police Station Pasan, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Ishika Prauha W/o Shri Sadanand Prauha Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Railway Colony Institute Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : None For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Aanchal Kashyap, Advocate, present in Court, submits that she has been requested by the applicant to inform the Court that Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, is presently bedridden on account of illness and that the applicant intends to engage another counsel for conducting the present case. On the said basis, a prayer for adjournment is made. 3. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission. However, it is noticed that the present revision petition is an old matter pending since the year 2025. The record further reflects that this matter has already been listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion and sufficient opportunity has been available to the applicant to prosecute the present revision petition. A perusal of the cause list as well as the record reveals that apart from Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate, there are three other learned counsel whose names are reflected therein and whose Vakalatnama are already on record on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, even if it is assumed that Mr. C.K. Kesharwani is presently unable to appear on account of illness, no explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why the other learned counsel, who continue to represent the applicant and whose authority remains subsisting on record, have not appeared before this Court to prosecute the matter. No reason has been assigned as to why any one of the said learned counsel could not have appeared and assisted the Court in the present proceedings. 4. It has further been submitted that the applicant intends to engage another counsel for conducting the present case. This submission, 3 however, does not inspire confidence. When as many as four learned counsel already stand engaged by the applicant and are duly authorized through Vakalatnama to represent him before this Court, the plea that further time is required for engaging yet another counsel appears wholly unjustified. No application seeking discharge of the existing counsel has been filed, nor has any fresh Vakalatnama in favour of a newly engaged counsel been brought on record. Except for the aforesaid oral submission, no material has been placed before this Court to indicate that any concrete steps have actually been taken by the applicant for engaging another counsel. The conduct of the applicant clearly indicates that despite having sufficient legal representation available, he is not interested in prosecuting the present revision petition with due diligence and seriousness. Rather, the prayer for adjournment appears to be an attempt to avoid the hearing of the matter and to prolong the proceedings by adopting delaying tactics. Such a course cannot be permitted by this Court. 5. It is well settled that old matters cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely merely on the basis of vague, indefinite and unsupported requests for adjournment. The applicant having failed to make appropriate arrangements for representation despite the matter being pending since 2025 and despite having multiple counsel on record, no sufficient ground is made out for grant of further time. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in support of the prayer for adjournment do not constitute sufficient 4 cause. The applicant has failed to explain why none of the other three learned counsel appearing on record has chosen to appear and assist the Court. Even otherwise, despite having multiple counsel representing him, the applicant now seeks further time on the ground that he intends to engage another counsel. The aforesaid circumstances, taken cumulatively, lead this Court to draw an inference that the applicant is not prosecuting the present revision petition bona fide and is attempting to avoid adjudication of the matter on merits. The conduct of the applicant reflects a lack of interest in diligently pursuing the present proceedings and demonstrates an attempt to prolong the matter unnecessarily. Such requests, founded on vague and indefinite grounds, cannot be accepted by this Court, more particularly when the matter is an old one and has already been listed on previous occasions. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. Despite the matter being called, none appears on behalf of the applicant to prosecute the present revision petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having regard to the conduct of the applicant noticed hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to keep the matter pending any further. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan