ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Mahindra Deshmukh on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Adv. Nagesh Chavan on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1 on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] There is an alleged delay of 45 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant in preferring an Appeal No.22 of 2012 and to seek of condonation of delay, this miscellaneous application has been filed. Application for condonation of delay is vehemently opposed by the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1.
[3] At the outset it may be mentioned that as endorsed on the Applicant/Appellant, this application for condonation of delay is not pressed as against the Non-Applicants/Respondents Nos.2 to 13 and as such, application for condonation of delay stands dismissed as against these Non-Applicants/Respondents.
[4] Before proceeding further, we find that the application for condonation of delay is filed by the Secretary, Agriculture Department Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Vita. However, as per the title of consumer complaint bearing No.1091 of 2008 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity), it was the Society which was a party Opponent No.1 and not the Secretary of the said Society, who represented the Society. Thus, the description of the Applicant/Appellant in this application for condonation of delay is erroneous but, it can be overlooked holding that it is the Society which in fact has filed this appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Learned Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant also conceded to this position.
[5] Before proceeding further, we find that as per the statement of the Applicant/Appellant, they received knowledge of the impugned order on 26/8/2011 through its lawyer. Therefore, period of limitation will start from 26/8/2011 and calculation of delay from the date of obtaining certified copy of the impugned order is not permissible since limitation once started running will not stop. Therefore, the delay which is tried to be explained is only of 45 days and for the entire period. Thus, it does not offer any satisfactory explanation.
[6] Delay is tried to be explained stating that after coming to know about the impugned order on 26/8/2011, the Applicant/Appellant passed a resolution on 31/8/2011 to prefer an appeal challenging the impugned order and directed one Mr. Kiran Uthale to engage and to appoint an advocate who appear before the State Commission. Thereafter, the Applicant/Appellant applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on 17/10/2011 i.e. much after the period of limitation was over. Certified copy of the impugned order is stated to have been received by the Applicant/Appellant on 20/10/2011. It is further stated that the Applicant/Appellant had engaged a local advocate, Mr. Kiran Uthale and entrusted him the job to search and appoint a lawyer for filing an appeal before the State Commission. Thus, the statement on the part of the Applicant/Appellant that they have business at Sangli District and they were not aware about the advocate who appear before the State Commission and, therefore, further appropriate steps could not be taken cannot be accepted. It is the local advocate who ultimately recommended the name of Adv. Mahindra Deshmukh, who is prosecuting the case before the State Commission. When the papers were forwarded to Adv. Mahindra Deshmukh is also not stated. Then, there is a reference made to Adv. Mahindra Deshmukh being engaged in his LL. M. examination during first and second week of December, 2011. Appeal ultimately came to be filed on 4/1/2012. Thus, the facts stated earlier would show that the delay of the entire period is not at all explained, much-less satisfactorily explained. Laxity on the part of the Applicant/Appellant is surfaced for all the time. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.11 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.22 of 2012 is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is not entertained and stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 04th December, 2012
