ORDER Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Considered; 2. The Complainant filed by the Respondent (CC No. 1136 of 2012) was allowed by the Ld. District Forum on 1.6.2016. The Petitioner being the Opposite Party challenged the Order of the District Forum by way of -2- Appeal No. 2222 of 2016 which was however dismissed for default and non-prosecution by the Ld. State Commission on 9.3.2022. The Petitioner, thereafter filed a Review Application being RA No. 18 of 2023 which was in turn dismissed by the Ld. State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 3.10.2024, as the application had been filed after a delay of 326 days, and the Ld. State Commission found that no justifiable grounds for condonation of such delay had been revealed on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. On perusal of copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is Annexure-P19, it is seen that the reasons for the delay have been explained in the accompanying Affidavit of Mr. Pratap Chand Rathore, Secretary, Chief Executive of the Petitioner Society who had explained the delay in this manner – “……..4. I state that the Appeal was listed before this Hon’ble Commission on 09/03/2022 for Hearing. I state that on 09/03/2022, the counsel for Appellant was not able to appear before the Hon’ble Commission owing to a communication gap resulting in the date being recorded in the office diary as 19/03/2022 instead of 09/03/2022. I state that the Appellant bona fide believed that the appeal was listed on 19/03/2022 and was not able to relay the information to my advocate. 5. I state that on 09/03/2022, the matter was called out in the absence of the Appellant and since the Appeal was of the year 2012, the appeal was dismissed for default and non-prosecution. I further state that the free copy of the order was not received by the Appellant and even if received may have been bona fide misplaced. I further state that this resulted in the Appellant not being aware of the dismissal. 6. I state that after applying for the certified copy of the impugned order in July 2022, I have sought the confirmation from the Appellant Society on seeking restoration of the Appeal to the file so that the -3- appeal can be heard on merits. I state that upon receipt of confirmation from the Appellant Society, the present application has been filed. I state that there is a delay in filing the application and an application to that effect has been filed.” 4. It is, thus, seen that the delay was sought to be explained by stating that the date on which the Appeal was dismissed (09.03.2022) was wrongly noted by the Petitioner’s Counsel as 19.03.2022. But if that be so, nothing appears to have been done on behalf of the Petitioner even on the date noted by its Counsel to know about the status of the Appeal. It took a delay of 326 days for the Petitioner to file its Review Application seeking recall of the Order of dismissal. But the same was dismissed by the Ld. State Commission as it found no merit in the same. 5. This Commission is in agreement with the decision of the Ld. State Commission in this regard because, as can be seen from the extracts of the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission, as re-produced above, there is a gross callousness on the part of the Petitioner and its Counsel as no steps to seek restoration of the Appeal were taken promptly, without any tangible reasons overall. Further, as rightly noted by the Ld. State Commission, the Petitioner/Appellant was not an ordinary litigant but a prominent Housing Co-op Society, which in the circumstances could not be permitted to get away with such callousness to the detriment of the Complainant who was a very old widowed lady when she filed her Complaint in 2012, and therefore ought not to have been denied the fruit of her successful litigation at such a late stage on account of sheer callousness on the part of the Petitioner Society, as also its Counsel. -4- 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Order of the Ld. State Commission. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed without costs. | 
