‘Ignorance is no excuse’: Chhattisgarh High Court denies labourer’s plea over 105-day delay in maintenance case

Justice Ramesh Sinha said that the record reveals that the petitioner remained inactive for a long period. (Image enhanced using AI)

The order added that the delay of 105 days in filing the present revision is grossly inordinate.

Background

• The matter arose from a challenge to a July 5, 2025, order issued by the family court.
• The family court had partially allowed an application filed by the respondent-wife, awarding her Rs 2,000 per month in maintenance from the date of the application’s filing.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Chandrikaditya Pandey submitted that the applicant is a rustic and illiterate villager having no proper knowledge of court procedures, and he was under the bona fide impression that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the local counsel would challenge any adverse order before the high court.
• He further submitted that in January, he came to know for the first time that the order had not been challenged.
• He argued that the delay of about 105 days in filing the revision is neither intentional nor deliberate.

Findings

• The explanation offered by the applicant is that the applicant, being an illiterate rustic villager, was under the bona fide belief that his counsel had already challenged the impugned order before this court.
• It is now well-settled that 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.
• In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkumar Choudhary, 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 doctrine of limitation is founded upon public policy that seeks to ensure certainty and finality in litigation.
• Upon learning that no challenge had been made, he promptly took steps to file the present revision, resulting in the delay, though invoking sympathy cannot be treated as “sufficient cause” in the eyes of the law.
• 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 that prevented timely action.
• The applicant has not been able to point out any circumstance arising within the period of limitation that disabled him from approaching this court.
• On the contrary, the record reveals that he remained inactive for a long period.
• Such an explanation cannot be construed as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, particularly when the delay is prolonged and unexplained for a substantial period.