JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 

1.      There is a delay of 1420 days in filing this case.  It is stated that the petitioner is 71 years of old.  An application for condonation of delay has also been moved.  The delay has been explained in para 3, which is reproduced as follows:

“That after passing of impugned order dated 25.9.2009, though the applicant wanted to challenge the same, however, though was advised that since the appeal was finally being disposed of within six months, he waited for the final outcome.  However, when nothing happened fruitful, more so, after expiry of many years, waiting for the authority to handover the possession of the flat in question, he finally to challenge the said order, however, due to ill health and old age ailments, the delay caused further.  However, it is respectfully submitted that the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate, however, due to medical and ill health reasons including aforesaid, which may, in the interest of justice, may kindly be condoned.  Copy of medical review report is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.”

2.      There is huge delay.  The revision petition is clearly barred by time.  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.  There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. 

3.      This view neatly dovetails with the finding of the authority in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein 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”.

4.      Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; 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 (1) SCR 1045, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221.

          The revision petition is dismissed.  It appears that the petitioner is 71 years of age and he has spent the entire amount for getting the flat.  The case is pending since 2009.  The State Commission is directed to expedite this case.  The Court should start the proceedings, serve the respondent as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and decide the case as early as possible but not more than six months from the date of receipt of this order.  The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2012.  A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner.