PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Counsel for the petitioner present.  The case was dismissed in default by the State Commission as back as on 06.02.2013.  The impugned order runs as follows:

          “06.02.2013

          FA-887/12

          Present:     None for the Appellant

                             Shri Somanadari Goud, counsel for the respondent

          Appeal called out.  Neither appellant nor his counsel appeared despite repeated calls.  Shri Somanadari Goud filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1 Blue Dart, which is kept on record.  The appeal is dismissed in appellant’s default.

          FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour, after completing due formalities.  File be consigned to the record room after doing the needful”.

2.      Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay.  The delay has been explained in para-2, which is reproduced below:

          “That due to the family problems of the applicant/petitioner he could not approach his counsel to take appropriate legal recourse against the impugned orders passed by the Ld. State Commission, I.T.O. Delhi.  It is pertinent to mention here that the father of the applicant/petitioner was suffered from paralysis attack as such he had to pay special attention for him as he resides at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.  The applicant/petitioner has been under immense mental pain and agony due to sickness of his father as such he could not inform his counsel, hence, no contact could be established between counsel and applicant/petitioner.  On 20.11.2013, the applicant/petitioner could only approached his counsel and requested to take appropriate legal recourse”.

3.      There is a delay of 227 days in filing the present revision petition.  This is a huge delay.  The day-to-day delay has not been explained.  No medical certificate of the father of the applicant, showing that he suffered due to paralytic attack, saw the light of the day.  Such like defenses can be created at any time.

4.      We have also perused the District Forum order.  The said order reads as follows:

          “Present     Counsel for the complainant

                             None for the OP

        96/11

          The complaint was dismissed in default on 11.11.2011 as none appeared for the complainant.  He also did not appear on previous date of hearing i.e. 22.09.2011.

          The complainant filed an application on 11.01.2012 with the request to restore the complaint.

          Now the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled down the law regarding the power of the District Consumer to recall its order.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case reported as JT 2011 (9) SC 407; Rajiv Hitendra Pathak & Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another that the CP Act does not empower District Consume Forum to recall its, if it is passed exparte of the order of dismissal of the complaint in default.  Considering the law of the land, the application is not maintainable.

          In view of the law of the land, the application for restoration of the complaint cannot be allowed.

          The application is rejected.

          Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rule.

          File be consigned to R/R”.

5.      It clearly goes to depict the negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the complainant.  The expression “Sufficient Cause “cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and CP Act.  There must be some reasonable cause, which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.  This view finds support from the citation Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam V. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and in Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7595-96 of 2011)-decided on 24.02.2012 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.   

6.      The application is hopelessly barred by time therefore the same is dismissed.  Consequently, revision petition is also dismissed.

7.      Counsel for the petitioner submits that he should be permitted to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file the fresh complaint concerned.

8.      The plea of the petitioner has been recorded.  No further order is passed.