Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Arvind Rane proxy advocate for Adv. Kishor Hase on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Adv. Santosh A. Patil on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.2 on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] The Applicant/Appellant has preferred an appeal bearing No.948 of 2011 challenging the judgment and order dated 16/12/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Execution Application No.408 of 2010, Mahesh Balaso Gavali Vs. Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika Contractor Nagri Sahakari Pat-sanstha Ltd. & Anr. The District Forum passed an order to the effect that since the execution proceeding has been filed against Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika Contractor Nagri Sahakari Pat-sanstha Ltd., and Chhatrapati Nagari Sahakari Pat-sanstha Ltd., but as the Executants/Decree-Holder did not implead Chairman and/or Secretary or any other staff member of these two institutions in the execution proceeding, summons could not be issued on these two institutions itself. Therefore, the execution proceeding was disposed of. Against this order, the Applicant/Appellant has filed this appeal. However, in filing this appeal there is an alleged delay of 220 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant and to seek condonation of delay the Applicant/Appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application No.553 of 2011.
[3] We have perused the delay condonation application. In the said application, the Applicant/Appellant has stated that impugned order was passed on 16/12/2010 rejecting his Execution Application. He received certified copy of the said order on 29/12/2010. However, thereafter because of old age and as he was suffering from high blood-pressure the doctor advised him to take bed-rest and, therefore, the Applicant/Appellant could not contact his advocate to further steps. According to the Applicant/Appellant, he contacted his advocate on or about 15/4/2010 and after taking his advice and after making financial arrangements, he filed this appeal on 8/9/2011 and in the process there has been a delay of 220 days. However, it is pertinent to note that alongwith the application for condonation of delay and an affidavit filed in support thereof, there is no medical certificate annexed to show that the Applicant/Appellant was suffering from high blood-pressure and he was advised to take bed-rest by the doctor. In absence of any such document, it is not possible for us to hold that just and sufficient causes have been shown to condone the enormous delay of 220 days in filing the appeal and as such, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.553 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.948 of 2011 stands rejected. Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 15th March, 2012
