1 2026:CGHC:13225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 729 of 2026 Preetam Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Vijay Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Vijay Nagar Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, …. Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through- Anti-Corruption Bureau Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ganesh Prasad Kumbhare S/o Late Mohan Lal Kumbhare Aged About 68 Years, The Then Assistant Mining Officer, Durg R/o Radha Bhavan Vijay Nagar Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 19.03.2026 1. Heard on I.A.No.1 under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. There is delay of 913 days caused in filing the appeal. The prayer made in the this appeal shows that the appellant seeks a direction to the State/respondents in respect of furnishing original copies of the sale deed 2 dated 16.02.2010 and other relevant documents relating to the land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to lack of proper legal knowledge, the delay has occurred in filing the instant appeal which is bonafide and not intentional. 4. The appellant has not shown sufficient reasons for the long delay, treating the plea of "bona fide". To condone such a long delay, the appellant must show "sufficient cause" that prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Simply stating the delay was "bona fide" or "not intentional" is often insufficient if the appellant was negligent or did not act with due diligence. 5. In a 2024 case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2024 INSC 932), the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal due to an excessive delay stating that the State failed to provide adequate justification and that such a delay made a mockery of justice. The said dictum of Supreme Court further unequivocally establishes that the judiciary will maintain a strict stance on the condonation of delays, irrespective of the petitioner being a State authority. 6. In view of the above legal position, this Court is not inclined to condone the huge delay of 913 days merely on the ground of lack of legal knowledge which is shown to be bona fide or unintentional. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is rejected. Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao