1 CGHC010280202026 2026:CGHC:32761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 946 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramashankar Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Lattipara, Kanker, P.O. Kanker, Tehsil And District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Alok Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramashankar Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Lattipara, Kanker, P.O. Kanker, Tehsil And District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Court Of Board Of Revenue Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Court Commissioner Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Collector Uttar Bastar Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. Heard. SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.03 16:02:23 +0530 2 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Circuit Court at Raipur in case No. M/Resto/09/R/A-4/11/2025 whereby the restoration application of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :- “10.1 It is prayed that Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order ANNEXURE P/1 dated 21.04.2026 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. M/Resto/09/R/A-4/11/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) by issuing suitable writ, orders, directions etc. in the interest of justice. 10.3 It is prayed that Hon’ble Court be pleased condone the delay in of restoration of appeal to direct the Court of Respondent No.2 to decide the Appeal Case No. A/09/R/A/4/66/2016 on its merits. 10.4 Any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur, vide Appeal Case No. A/09/R/A- 4/66/2016 assailing the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. During the pendency of the said appeal, petitioner No.2 was diagnosed with cancer and had to undergo continuous treatment at the Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. Owing to the serious medical condition of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 was required to remain with him to provide assistance during his treatment and travel. It is submitted that on account of these unavoidable circumstances, 3 coupled with the fact that the counsel engaged by the petitioners had shifted his practice from Raipur without informing them, the petitioners could neither remain in contact with their counsel nor effectively prosecute the pending appeal. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.05.2024. Immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for restoration on 14.10.2025 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel would contend that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, namely the prolonged medical treatment of petitioner No.2 and the unavailability of their counsel. It is argued that the petitioners had placed on record the relevant medical documents before the Board of Revenue to substantiate the reasons for their absence; however, the Board failed to consider the same in their proper perspective while rejecting the restoration application. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the subject land since the year 2005 and have constructed a residential house thereon. A show- cause notice has been issued by respondent No.4 questioning the petitioners' possession over the disputed land. It is contended that unless the appeal is restored and decided on the merits, the petitioners would be deprived of an effective opportunity to establish their rights and raise their defence before the competent revenue authorities, resulting in serious and irreparable prejudice. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 rejecting the restoration application 4 be set aside, the delay in filing the restoration application be condoned, the appeal be restored to its original file, and the Board of Revenue be directed to decide the same expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.05.2024 and the restoration application was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly seventeen months. It is submitted that the petitioners failed to furnish sufficient cause to satisfactorily explain the prolonged delay and their continuous absence before the Board of Revenue. The Board, after considering the material available on record, rightly found that no sufficient ground existed for condoning the delay or restoring the appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.05.2024 and that the restoration application was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the delay. The explanation furnished by the petitioners is that petitioner No.2 has been undergoing treatment for cancer at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, and petitioner No.1 had to remain with him during the course of such treatment. The petitioners have also stated that their engaged counsel had shifted his practice from Raipur, due to 5 which they remained under the bona fide impression that their case was being properly looked after. The medical documents in support of the illness of petitioner No.2 were also placed before the Board of Revenue. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the petitioners cannot be said to be wholly implausible or lacking in bona fides. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is required to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly where no material is available to indicate that the delay was deliberate or actuated by mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, has held that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations. 8. The impugned order reveals that the Board of Revenue rejected the restoration application primarily on the ground of delay without assigning due weight to the medical condition of petitioner No.2 and the documents placed on record in support thereof. It is well settled that procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Since the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits, denial of restoration would deprive the petitioners of an opportunity to have their grievance examined by the appellate authority, whereas restoration of the appeal would not cause any irreparable prejudice to the respondents, who would have full opportunity to contest the matter on merits. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered 6 opinion that the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 suffers from an unduly technical approach and cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside; the delay in filing the restoration application stands condoned, the restoration application filed by the petitioners is allowed and the Appeal Case No. A/09/R/A-4/66/2016 is restored to its original number. The Board of Revenue shall proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court at Raipur (C.G.) on 12/08/2026. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit