Misc. Case No.907 of 2016

   This relates to a petition for  condonation of delay.

    As per the office note, there is delay of 158 days in preferring the  appeal.

            Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed on 30.03.2016, but the petitioner got information about it from his lawyer on 01.10.2016. Thereafter, he collected the relevant documents from his lawyer on 02.10.2016  and came to Cuttack and contacted his counsel on 04.10.2016 and the appeal was filed on 05.10.2016. So, the delay in preferring the appeal is not intentional.

            Learned counsel for the opp. party vehemently opposes the limitation petition. Accordingly to him the name of the counsel dealing with the consumer complaint, before the District Forum has not been mentioned in the petition. No action has been taken against the counsel engaged by the appellant before the District Forum for not informing him about the dismissal of consumer complaint in an early date. So according to learned counsel for the opp. party, the petition for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. There is delay of 158 days in preferring the appeal. According to the petitioner even though the impugned order was passed on 30.03.2016, the counsel engaged before the District Forum intimated him about it only on 1.10.2016 and without delay the appeal was filed on 05.10.2016. So, there was no negligence on the part of petitioner. Admittedly, the name of counsel engaged in the District Forum does not find place in the petition. There is nothing to show that any action was taken by the petitioner against the lawer engaged in the District Forum for not informing him about the impugned order in an early date. If the delay of 158 days is condoned, on the plea that the counsel engaged in the District Forum informed about the final order in a belated stage which does not inspire confidence, there such untainable plea can be taken in every petition for condonation of delay.

          Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected and the Misc. Case is dismissed. Consequentially, First Appeal No.453 of 2016 stands dismissed.  counsel engaged before the District Forum intimated him about it only on 1.10.2016 and without delay the appeal was filed on 05.10.2016. So, there was no negligence on the part of petitioner. Admittedly, the name of counsel engaged in the District Forum does not find place in the petition. There is nothing to show that any action was taken by the petitioner against the lawer engaged in the District Forum for not informing him about the impugned order in an early date. If the delay of 158 days is condoned, on the plea that the counsel engaged in the District Forum informed about the final order in a belated stage which does not inspire confidence, there such untainable plea can be taken in every petition for condonation of delay.

  Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected and the Misc. Case is dismissed. Consequentially, First Appeal No.453 of 2016 stands dismissed.