Condonation of delay requires establishing sufficient cause arising specifically within the prescribed limitation period.

The applicants (a wife and her minor son) sought to challenge an order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, which granted maintenance only to the minor child and not the wife

The applicants preferred a criminal revision against this order but did so with a delay of 276 days

The applicants moved an application (I.A. No. 01/2025) for condonation of delay, citing reasons including initial lack of awareness of the order, difficulties in arranging documents and obtaining certified copies due to the unavailability of their previous counsel, and the fact that they resided on the outskirts of the city

Whether the delay of approximately 276 days in preferring the revision petition deserves to be condoned on the grounds of "sufficient cause"

"sufficient cause" for condonation of delay requires an adequate and enough reason that prevented the party from approaching the court within the limitation period

negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides cannot be condoned, and that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously rather than as a matter of generosity

"sufficient cause" must be traced to circumstances arising within the period of limitation, rather than events occurring after the period has already expired

The court found the 276-day delay to be "grossly inordinate"

It evaluated the applicants’ explanations—financial constraints, lack of legal guidance, and ignorance of the law—and determined they did not constitute "sufficient cause" in the eyes of the law

The court reasoned that the rules of limitation are based on public policy and equity to ensure finality in litigation; thus, once the statutory period expires, the opposite party acquires a valuable right that should not be lightly disturbed

The court noted that the applicants remained inactive for a long period and failed to point to any specific circumstance arising within the limitation period that disabled them from filing the revision

Consequently, the court held that the explanation offered was a lack of diligence rather than a bona fide obstruction

The court held that poverty, ignorance of law, and residential location do not satisfy the legal requirement of "sufficient cause" when a litigant has been negligent or inactive in pursuing their remedies