HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR Cavil Revision No.108/2007 Slngle Bench: Hon'b!e Shri Didp Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Afi@||cajit indramani Pandey, widow of Late Shri Prakash Pandey, aged about 41 years, resident of village and Post - Raghunathpur, District, Sauguja (CG) Versus NonNapplica§Bits 1. Prashant Pandey, aged about 45 years, son of Late Pooranchandra Pandey 2. Prabhat Pandey, son of Late Pooranchandra Pandey, aged about 40 years, Both resident of - Bramhanpara, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Civii Revjsion under Section 115 ofthe Clvii Procedure Code. 1908. Present:- Shri Vinay Pandey, counsei for the appijcant. ORAL_ORDER. (Passed on 17th Septeenber, 2007) Heard on S.A. No.1 for condonation ofdeiay. (2) Brief facts are that the applicant had fiied a succession case No.20/1998 under Section 372 ofthe indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate before the Clvjj Judge, Ciass-1, Ambikapur. By order dated 31.1.2002 the trial Court ordered that the applicant and the two sons of the deceased Prakash Pandey namely Prashant Pandey and Prabhat Pandey were entltled to equal share in the monies ieft by the deceased. Prashant Pandey and Prabhat Pandey preferred a misceilaneous clv'i! appeal No.22/2002. By order dated 17.5.2003, the VIth Additional District Judge, (FTC) Ambikapur heid that the applicant indramani Pandey was not entitled to any share in the monies ieft by the deceased since it was not established that she was the iegaliy married wife of the deceased Prakash Pandey. Aggrieved by the said order, indramani Pandey preferred second appeai No.395/2003 within iimltation. On 17.1.2007, iearned counsei for the Priya ^n^L ^- ^ appeiiant indramani Pandey withdrew the appeai with liberty to fiie civil revision. Reserving the tiberty as prayed for, the second appea! was dismissed as withdrawn. (3) The present revision is fiied on 11.09.2007 and is thus grossly barred by limitation. 7 r (4) The soie argument advanced by the learned counsei for the applicant is that since the appiicant was inadvertentiy pursuing a remedy before a v^rong forum, the delay in filing this revision may be condoned. (5) However, even if the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appiicant is to be accepted, the revision is grossiy barred by limitation. No cause much less sufficient has been assigned for the inordinate delay in the appiication for condonation of deiay in filing this civil revision. The appiication for condonation of deiay is therefore iiabie to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismlssed. As a resuft this civil revision also stands dismissed as barred by iimitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmvkh Judge