JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. This order shall decide four cases detailed above. 2. There is delay of 662 days in filing the four revision petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain that there is delay only in two cases and in the remaining cases, the appeal has been filed against the review orders otherwise there is delay of 662 days. The review applications in two cases were moved on 1.7.2013 after the expiry -4- of about 600 days. It must be borne in mind that in this regard the decision was rendered in the celebrated authority i.e. Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. (2011) 9) SCC 541 which was announced in the year August, 2011. The review petition was moved in the year 2013 intentionally to gain time. This has become a fashion that the litigant to first file the revision petition and get it dismissed so that the delay could be explained, which is a wrong practice. Under the circumstances, we can say that there is delay of 676 days in each of the cases. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 8.8.2011 on 28.4.2013 when the General Manager of the Society produced the order before the Board of Administrators in a meeting held on 28.4.2013. This contention is vague and evasive. It does not state when the General Manager of the Society acquired the knowledge of this order. It is also explained that Board of Administrators was appointed on 4.10.2012 and now at this stage, the petitioner-Society is being governed through the Administrators. It is thus this change. It is further explained -5- that the appeal preferred before the State Commission was finally disposed of. It was further explained that Shri S. C. Nagpal, General Manager of the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid appeal and his statement made before the Commission on 8.8.2011 was not binding on the petitioner as he was never authorized by the Society to make such a statement. 4. We have perused the complaint filed before the District Forum. The complaint was filed by Shri Baljit Singh Nain and Smt. Sunita Nain against the New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Panchkula (Regd.) through its Present Secretary M/s Manju Sharma. The case was contested through Shri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for the New Haryana Officers Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Panchkula and the case was decided. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission by the New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd Panchkula through its present Secretary Ms. Manju Sharma. During the course of arguments, Mr. S. C. Nagpal, General Manager of the appellant/petitioner had got recorded the statement to the effect that membership of the complainant has been restored after -6- receiving the enhanced amount of the loan. In this view of the matter, no further cause of action existed in favour of the appellant to continue with the said appeal and the same was hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. The impugned order dated 8.8.2011 runs as follows: “Dr. REKHA SHARMA, MEMBER:- Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, Panchkula. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant has come up in appeal. Heard and record perused. During the course of arguments Mr. S. C. Nagpal, General Manager of the appellant had got recorded his statement to the effect that membership of the complainant has been restored after receiving the enhanced amount of the loan. In this view of the matter, no further cause of action exists in favour of the appellant to continue with the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed having become infructuous.” 5. It is surprising to note that the society remain silent for a period of 676 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Mr. S. C. Nagpal, General Manager of the Society made a statement -7- unauthorisedly. He was not empowered to make a statement. Even if the arguments of learned counsel are taken as gospel truth, it is not going to serve his purpose as the society slept for a period of 676 days. There is not even an iota of evidence to show that Mr. S. C. Nagpal was not the General Manager of the Society or he was not authorized to do the needful. This must be borne in mind that this is a dispute under the Consumer Protection Act. 6. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 7. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the -8- counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. 8. It is surprising to note that nobody from the society was interested to know the progress of the case. Even if Mr. S. C. Nagpal made an unauthorized statement, the Society himself must have known about it. The aggrieved persons should have gone to the office of the advocate themselves and post them about the next date of hearing. Even if the case of the petitioner is strong on merits but there is a huge delay which the advocate has failed to explain. Law does not help the sleeping person. They should have inquired from their advocate about the status of the case and what is the next date of hearing. After the last date of hearing, they did not approach either the State Commission or their advocate. It appears that they were satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, therefore, it did not take any action. 9. Moreover, this question involves contentious and knotty issue, which cannot be decided by a consumer fora. The order itself shows that at that time, Mr. S. C. Nagpal was the General Manager. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of forgery, -9- fabrication of documents, misrepresentation involve a lot of evidence. Again whether Mr. S. C. Nagpal is a necessary party or not requires discussion and evidence. 10. All the revision petitions are lame of strength and as such those are hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. | 
