1 2026:CGHC:15487-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 267 of 2026 Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri S/o Late Shri Laduram Bhatpahri Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Jounda, Post - Kond, Thana - Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Udanti, Gariyaband District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Animesh Miri and Mr. Mohanlal Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 06/04/2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.09 10:49:23 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Animesh Miri and Mr. Mohanlal Kaushik, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for respondents/State on I.A. No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal under Section 5 of the limitation act. The present writ appeal is delayed by 213 days from the date of order passed in WPS No. 6056/2021. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated 09.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 6056 of 2021 (Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. The writ appeal has also been filed against the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 414/2025 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. From perusal of I.A. No. 01/2026, the petitioner has assigned the reasons for delay that in compliance of the order dated 09.06.2025, the petitioner reinstated and joined on duty on 31.07.2025, however, he has not received any salary since his reinstatement and facing financial hardship and poverty, therefore, he could not move for filing of the writ appeal within time. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since no back wages was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 09.06.2025, he moved a review petition which has also been dismissed. The writ appellant was not at any fault but it is the 3 authorities concerned who were at fault and the writ appellant is entitled for back wages also. Even after his reinstatement, salary to him has not been provided and thereby, he could not be able to file his writ appeal within time. Due to the wrong committed by the authorities, the petitioner was kept out of his duty for a considerable period for which he in entitled by back wages. Therefore, there is sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal and the writ appellant has merits in the appeal for grant of back wages. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellant and submits that the writ appellant has not sufficiently explained the reasons for delay in filing the writ appeal. He has not avert in the writ petition that he was not gain fully employed at any where during his period of termination and the learned Single Judge has also considered in Para 12 of its order that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any back wages. The petitioner joined his service pursuant to the order dated 09.06.2025 and thereafter, only to brought to appeal within time he moved his application for review at belated stage which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no merits in the case as well as the application for condonation of delay in preferring the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant writ appeal as well as the record of the writ appeal and writ petition. 7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of 4 Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary” 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:- “5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows: "13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters 5 laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant." Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. 5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, 2024 INSC 262, wherein, one of us (J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member, after referring to various decisions on the issue, it was in unequivocal terms observed by this Court that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant passage of the same is profitably extracted below: “24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of 6 India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the 7 sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. xxx xxx xxx 34. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case. 36. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” Applying the above legal proposition to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court correctly refused to 8 condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this petition at the threshold. 6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/ appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously. 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The 9 court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733).” 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the aforementioned judgm/ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that the discretion to condone delay has to be exercised with great caution and only upon a clear and satisfactory demonstration of “sufficient cause.” The law is well-settled that poverty or ignorance of law, by themselves, do not constitute such sufficient cause, and that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be overlooked under the guise of advancing substantial justice. 9. Though, the petitioner had filed a review petition bearing Rev.P. No. 414/2025, which has been decided on 15.12.2025, however, there is no averment in the application for condonation of delay as to when the review petition was filed for reviewing the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in WPS No. 6056/2021. From his application for condonation of delay, it transpires that the petitioner has been reinstated in his service 10 and joined the duty on 31.07.2025, yet, he neither availed the remedy of review petition immediately nor challenge the impugned order without any further delay. It appears that the review petition has been filed by the petitioner only to extend the limitation to file the writ appeal. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles and upon careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the delay of 213 days in filing the present appeal is grossly inordinate. The explanation offered by the appellant, i.e. financial constraints, lack of legal guidance, and ignorance of the remedy, though invoking sympathy, cannot be treated as “sufficient cause” in the eye of law. It is now well-settled that poverty or ignorance of law by themselves do not constitute adequate justification for condoning delay, nor can the valuable right that accrues to the opposite party by virtue of the law of limitation be lightly taken away. 11. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that no case for condonation of delay is made out. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. As a consequence, the instant writ appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika