ORAL

IA 12557/2018 (condonation of delay)

This Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 148 days in filing Revision Petition No.1891 of 2018, which has been filed against the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) dated 29.12.2017 in Appeal No.1202 of 2009, against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (for short “the District Forum”) dated 11.06.2009 in Complaint No.939 of 1996 filed by the Petitioner.

There is a delay of 148 days in filing the present Revision Petition and this Application has been moved seeking condonation of delay.  The ground

-2-

given is that since the Petitioner is residing out of Delhi, he was facing problem in getting the local Counsel engaged for preparation of the present Revision Petition.  This is the only ground given for seeking condonation of delay.

It is a settled principle of law that the Court, while dealing with the Applications for condonation of delay in Appeal and Revision Petition, has to adopt liberal attitude.  It is also a settled principle of law that it is for the Applicant to explain each and every day’s delay and give reasonable grounds for such delay.  Where the delay remains unexplained, or the grounds given are unconvincing, the Courts are justified in refusing to condone the delay and rejecting the Applications and Revision Petitions on the ground being filed beyond the period of limitation.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has clearly held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right of the Applicants and they are required to give proof of a sufficient cause.  The order as held reads as under:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary

-3-

power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

          The Hon’ble Court has held in “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  that the courts is to see whether the Petitioner had acted with due and reasonable diligence or not.  the Hon’ble Court has held as under:

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave

petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

          In “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.  The court has held as under:

“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 Fora."

Applying these principles on the reasons given by the Applicant in the Application, I am satisfied that he has miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the present Revision Petition within the period of limitation.  The ground that he does not reside in Delhi and therefore, he could not engage a local

-4-

Counsel for filing the present Revision Petition is unconvincing and is not reasonable and sufficient for condoning the delay.  The Application is dismissed.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is also dismissed.