Order no. 5 date:20-12-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition.

It is contended by the Appellants that neither the Ld. District Forum served any copy of the impugned order upon them, nor did their own Ld. Advocate.  As a result, the Appellants were virtually in the dark till copy of the summon of Execution case served upon them.  Soon thereafter, they engaged a new Advocate and filed this Appeal on 16-02-2017.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides.  We have also gone through the documents on record.

It appears that the instant Appeal has been filed with a delay of 66 days beyond the statutory period of limitation.  Appellants have cited two reasons  to justify delayed filing of this Appeal – (1) non-receipt of copy of the impugned order from the Ld. District Forum and (2) alleged non-cooperation of their Ld. Advocate.

As for the first reason, we are to state that since it was a contested case, their Ld. Advocate was free to collect the free copy of impugned order from the office of the Ld. District Forum. 

Regarding the second issue, it sounds quite strange that the Ld. Advocate, who defended the Appellants before the Ld. District Forum steadfastly, did not inform anything about the impugned order to them.  There is nothing on record to show that the Appellants ever show caused the concerned Advocate for such alleged laches on his part.  In any case, it is hardly believable that despite receiving due fees, a professional Advocate would not discharge his duty properly. If he indeed did so, the Appellants were free to take appropriate legal steps against him.  However, nothing of this sort is forthcoming before us.  Above all, nowadays day to day proceedings of each and every Complaint/Execution cases/Appeals/Revisions are put up on the website.  Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the concerned Ld. Advocate indeed kept the Appellants in the dark about passing of the impugned order, it was only a click away for them to gain knowledge about it.

Accordingly, it appears to us that the Appellants have not shown any ‘sufficient cause’ to justify such delayed filing of this Appeal.  According to the statute, ‘sufficient cause’ is a condition precedent to condone delay.  That being not done, we afraid, the instant petition cannot be allowed.

Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.