ORDER : 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2024, wherein the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the revisioner respondent No. 4 and further issue appearance, reply and final argument dated 06.08.2024. 3. Facts of the case is that the respondent No. 4 has filed an application under Section 144,145 of the Cr.P.C. and seeking injunction against the petitioners and his family members. The petitioners and the respondents have their ancestral property at village Dharashiv, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, bearing khasra no. 290, 245, 182, 2134, 2520/2, 2529, 2531, 2522/1, 2522/2,2523,2524, 2525, 2528/1, 2528/2, 2619, 2623, 2624 total Rakba 9.94 acre and khasra n?. 666, 1956/1, 2519, 2520/1, 2526, 2527, 245 total khasra no. 07 Rakba 1.56 acre and for that reason the respondent no. 4 earlier filed an application under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the petitioners and his family members were trying to capture the property for that reason to maintain peace and receiver over the property made the application. 4. That, the S.D.O. has called out the records of the revenue land and also demanded the status report of the present property from the S.H.O. Pamgarh dated 02.12.2013, wherein it is said by the S.H.O. that the above property mention was in the name of Balbhadra Giri and Kaushalya Bai who where the father and mother of the petitioners and the respondent no. 4 and also give a report in which clearly mentioned that the land was the ancestral property in the revenue records and the name of the father Balbhadra Giri was mentioned and for that reason the property was the joint family property. On dated 05.12.2013 the revenue court has given the order that the crops which were cultivated over the land is to be given on Supurdnama to the village Kotwar namely Mil Ram that the issue has been settled between petitioners and the respondent no. 4 the S.D.O. has conducted the enquiry and also filed an affidavit from petitioners and respondent no. 4 the S.D.O. has conducted the enquiry and also filed an affidavit from petitioners and respondent no. 4 and other concerning parties who knowing facts of the case after scrutinize the evidences has passed the order dated 30.03.2022, wherein stated that the petitioners wherein the peaceful possession and no breach under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. was done by the petitioners and the application filed by the respondent no. 4 was dismissed. 5. The petitioners and his family member were surprisingly shocked that the revisioner (respondent no. 4) has served summon appear before the Session Court the summon which was received to the petitioners on dated 18.06.2024 to appear in the revision case no. 29/2024 and the matter is fixed hearing on 09.07.2024. 6. The petitioners were appeared on 09.07.2024 before the learned revisional court wherein after enquiry found that the respondent no. 4 has earlier filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in which the notices were issued to the petitioners and the other interested party i.e. family member. The petitioners raised oral objection that the matter was earlier heard and till today they were not disturbing the property although the matter was heard without giving opportunity to them and allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the reason mentioned were not heard. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the respondent no. 4 has filed an application under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been rejected by the respondent no. 3 on dated 30.03.2022, after that the respondent no. 4 was knowing this fact, although he has suppressed and stated that the counsel has not informed to him is not correct because it is in the knowledge of the respondent no. 4 from the very beginning because the respondent no. 4 was working in SECL and at the time of passing of the order by the S.D.O. dated 30.03.2022 he has also submitted his affidavit and it is not known to him that he is not knowing the date of passing of the order is not correct. He further submits that, in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the revisioner (respondent no. 4) has specifically pleaded that he is aged about 75 years and the counsel has not given the correct dismissal of the case dated 30.03.2022. He further submits that, in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the revisioner (respondent no. 4) has specifically pleaded that he is aged about 75 years and the counsel has not given the correct dismissal of the case dated 30.03.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners and the respondent no. 4 were the family members and it is not possible to the respondent no. 4 that he was not knowing about the passing of the order because the application filed by him. It is further more stated that the respondent no. 4 after filing of the revision before the learned revisional court the learned revisional court issue notice under section 5 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner dated 03.05.2024, where in the notices in which the service report marked and the signatures of the petitioners and the family members were not original because the petitioner always put his signature in English and the other family member who were resided at different places but the notice issue to village Dharashiv is not properly served because the petitioner no. 2 was resident of Bilaspur and the petitioner no. 3 and 4 were resident of village Dharashiv, but the notice was signed at village Dharashiv which is fraud because the petitioners has not signed the notice and in the impugned order it is mentioned that the notice were served to the petitioner no. 1 to 4 and on dated 03.05.2024 the petitioners were remained ex-parte and the matter was fixed for further proceeding on 05.06.2024 and on 05.06.2024 the respondent no. 4 counsel appear and the ex-parte order was passed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the matter was further listed on 09.07.2024 for the appearance, reply and final argument of the revision filed by the respondent no. 4. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The revisional court has passed the order on 30.03.2022, and the applicant had filed this revision petition in the revisional Court on 20.03.2024. The reason provided for the delay in filing the revision petition is that the applicant/Respondent No. 4 (herein) resides in Bhilai and was not informed by his advocate of the order issued by the concerned court. 10. The revisional court has passed the order on 30.03.2022, and the applicant had filed this revision petition in the revisional Court on 20.03.2024. The reason provided for the delay in filing the revision petition is that the applicant/Respondent No. 4 (herein) resides in Bhilai and was not informed by his advocate of the order issued by the concerned court. The applicant/Respondent No. 4 (herein) being 75 years old and frequently ill, was unaware of the concerned court's order. Upon getting the information of the said order on 11.03.2024, he applied for a certified copy and, after obtaining it on 18.03.2024, became aware of the order for the first time. 11. The revision petition was submitted within a period of 90-day. Though there was a delay of almost two years in filing the revision petition, the applicant, being 75 years old and residing in Bhilai, has claimed that he was not informed of the said order by his advocate, which does not indicate any deliberate negligence or opposition from the other side. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeal or revision are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. In this case the age of the petitioner is 75 years and due to mistake on the part of his counsel the delay occurred in filing the revision. Therefore, the learned revisional Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS is being totally devoid of merits and the same is rejected.