Homemaker's Financial Difficulties Not 'Sufficient Cause' To Condone Delay: Chhattisgarh High Court
Dismissing an application seeking condonation of 224 days of delay, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the explanation offered, that the applicant is a homemaker of advanced age and is dependent upon her children who are facing financial and medical difficulties, is insufficient cause to condone delay.Emphasizing that delay could be condoned only if the litigant shows diligence, bona fide,...
Dismissing an application seeking condonation of 224 days of delay, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the explanation offered, that the applicant is a homemaker of advanced age and is dependent upon her children who are facing financial and medical difficulties, is insufficient cause to condone delay.
Emphasizing that delay could be condoned only if the litigant shows diligence, bona fide, and satisfactory reason for delay, the bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held:
"The explanation offered by the applicant that the applicant is a homemaker and, being of advanced age, is dependent upon her children, who are facing financial and medical difficulties, therefore, some time was required to arrange suitable legal assistance for filing the present revision, cannot be treated as “sufficient cause” in the eye of law".
An application was filed seeking condonation of delay of 224 days in preferring her criminal revision. In the criminal revision, the applicant was challenging an order of January 31, 2024.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant was a homemaker, of advanced age, and dependent upon her children, who are facing financial and medical difficulties, she was unable to file the revision within the prescribed period. Accordingly, she prays for condonation of delay in the interest of justice.
The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was whether 224 days of delay deserved to be condoned.
Referring to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Ramkumar Choudhary, wherein it was held that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised with great cautiona nd only upon a clear and satisfactory demonstration of “sufficient cause.”
The bench further reiterated that poverty or ignorance of the law by themselves do not constitute sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay.
The court further emphasized, "The doctrine of limitation is founded upon public policy that seeks to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. Once the statutory period has expired, a litigant seeking indulgence of the Court must show diligence and bona fides, and must explain satisfactorily the circumstances which prevented timely action".
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the application, noting that no case for condonation of delay was made out.
Case Title: Sharda Bai Chandrakar v Tejram Chandrakar, CRR No. 2 of 2025
For Applicant: Advocate Deepali Gupta