IA No. 2236 of 2022 ( condonation of delay) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the dispute, we find it expedient and in the interest of justice to allow this application and treat this revision petition to be within time. The application is accordingly allowed. Revision Petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Inspite of opportunities having been granted, no compliance has been shown of the orders dated 30.04.2024 and 05.06.2024. 2. From a perusal of the order dated 05.06.2024, we find that the Revisionists have stated that the mortgaged letters and documents remained untraceable by the staff of the Petitioner – Board. This state of affairs cannot be appreciated and has to be deprecated. Withholding of documents that were directed to be produced is a gross lapse and is itself a serious -3- deficiency. There seems to be no sense of duty or responsibility to obey orders that were passed by this Commission. 3. The narrative of the entire litigative history of this case explains as to why people at times are compelled to loose confidence in the system. 4. A Complaint was filed being CC No. 169 of 1998 and on 12.10.2000. The Complaint was allowed holding that the Petitioners herein were deficient in their services by not providing any information with regard to their claim about any dues outstanding against the Complainant – Respondent. To the contrary, the findings recorded by the District Commission are reproduced hereinunder : “The documents have been filed by both parties in support of their contentions, which are available on record. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the complainant took interest in payment of the instalment, but no receipt regarding the payment of instalments by the complainant was provided to him. Moreover, the details of latest outstanding also has not been provided. No letter or notice also was issued to the complainant regarding depositing the instalments by delay and whatever details of the payments have been given, the same also have been provided after this case has been filed. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and arguments of the above case, from the facts which have emerged, it appears that there is a deficiency in the service of the respondent. Therefore, the opinion of the forum is that the respondent should be to the complainant, an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as suit expenses to the complainant within a month. In addition, the mortgaged letter and other necessary documents deposited by the complainant should also be returned to him.” 5. The Housing Board seems to have filed an Appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.02.2015. The order is reproduced hereinunder : -4- Neither party appears. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. After six years, a restoration / review application was filed which was taken up on 20.09.2021 and the same was rejected. The order dated 20.09.2021 is extracted hereinunder : Learned counsel for the Housing Board has filed this case for restoration of Appeal no. 1007 of 2000, which was dismissed for default by order dated 20.02.2015 The learned counsel submits that on account of the non communication of date fixed in the case, the case could not be attended to as a result of which it was dismissed for non prosecution. It is next submitted that total amount liable to be paid as per order, dated 12.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Forum, East Champaran, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 169 of 1998 was Rs. 2000/- along with legal expenses of Rs. 500/-. The appellant were also directed to return the Mortgaged Documents of Land and other papers to the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that of Rs. 2500/- has already been deposited before the District Consumer Forum, East Champaran, Motihari at the time of seeking stay of the execution case. I find that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.02.2015 and during the judgment period the commission was not empowered with review. As such the Restoration Miscellaneous case is dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction. 7. It is assailing the said order that the present Revision Petition has been filed urging that the impugned order will cause grave injustice in case the Appeal is not restored and heard on merits. -5- 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Revisionist as also learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The respondent during the pendency of this Revision Petition died and has been substituted by his legal heirs. An order was passed on 01.01.2024, while granting an interim relief against the execution, that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.12,500/- payable to each of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that demand drafts were prepared and he has with him the photocopies thereof. The Photocopies of the demand draft indicate that said demand drafts which were valid only for 3 months, were prepared in January 2024. Learned counsel for the respondent states that they have not yet been received or delivered as such the amounts remain unpaid as directed. 10. The facts as disclosed and noted herein above, the entire dispute was with regard to an allegation regarding non providing of the services in respect of clearing of the dues of the installments for the premises and the unit that had been purchased by the complainant. The objection taken by the Petitioner was that there was a delay in payment of 33 instalments and it is for this alleged reason that the complainant does not seem to have been delivered the documents and papers pertaining to the property. This objection was examined by the District Commission and it was found that the installments had been paid, but since there was some delay, the interest thereon was being claimed by the Board. The Board could not produce any calculation or lead evidence to substantiate their defence inspite of opportunities available to -6- them. In the absence of any proof of the computation or documents relating to the claim of interest on the alleged delayed payment of 33 instalments, the District Commission rightly observed that deficiency was established and that the complainant was entitled to the relief. As noted at the outset, the Petitioners have been unable to produce any document even before this Commission. 11. It is in this background that the Complaint was filed and it was allowed way back in the year 2000. The appeal was filed and was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.02.2015. An application was moved to review / restore after almost six years in 2021 that was rejected on 20.09.2021. There is no plausible explanation as to why the restoration / review application was filed before the State Commission after six years. Even though the State Commission has rejected the application as not maintainable in the absence of power of review, the application was heavily barred by time and there is no material or explanation about the huge inordinate delay in moving the application in 2021 after the dismissal of the appeal in default in 2015. 12. Almost a quarter of a century has passed away and the next generation has been substituted in this litigation. This state of affairs is nothing else which speaks volumes about the manner of functioning of the petitioner and the corresponding harassment to the complainant. The order of the District Commission, therefore, in the opinion of this Commission deserves to be executed forthwith by taking all such coercive steps that may be available to -7- the executing Court. This revision petition has no merits. Even otherwise, there is no occasion for this Commission to interfere as there is no material irregularity found in the order of the District Commission or the orders passed by the State Commission. Revision Petition is dismissed with Rs.5000/- as cost. The cost imposed today coupled with the amount which was directed to be paid to the respondents under the order dated 01.01.2024 shall also be made part of the execution process for being realized from the complainants in case it is not paid. | 
