Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1) Appellant UCO Bank, Amravati Road, Nagpur has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment Dt.13/09/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. Alongwith the appeal present appellant/applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Applicant has taken a plea that though the impugned order came to be passed on 13/09/2017 by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission in Consumer Complaint No.16/157, the present applicant had no knowledge regarding the same and came to know about the said order only in the month of June 2019 when execution proceedings were started and Tahasildar Nagpur issued demand notice Dt.15/06/2019. Applicant thereafter contacted to his counsel and then preferred the present application. Applicant has further contended that though there was delay of 707 days in preferring the present appeal, the same was unintentional and was only due to mistake of the junior counsel who did not inform the present applicant. Application is bonafide and therefore the delay of 707 days may be condoned in the interest of justice.
2) Non applicant has strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay and has categorically denied that the present applicant have no knowledge regarding the order passed on 13/09/2017 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. On the contrary after the judgment was delivered on 13/09/2017 the non applicant has started execution proceedings under section 27 and notice was also served to the present applicant on 06/11/2018 but the applicant is trying to show his innocence that he did not receive the notice. Present application is barred by limitation and the cause can not be termed as satisfactory and so application needs to be rejected.
3) I have heard Shri Bansod, learned advocate for the applicant and Shri Barapatre, learned advocate for non applicant. Shri Bansod learned advocate for the applicant has reiterated the contention made in the application and has submitted that applicant has no knowledge regarding the order passed on 13/09/2017 by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur and got the knowledge only when he received the letter from Tahasildar Nagpur. Learned advocate Shri Barapatre for the non applicant has rebutted this contention and has drawn my attention to the various documents on record. Bare perusal of the documents filed by the non applicant shows that the present applicant had received the summons on 06/11/2018 and thereafter applicant appeared on 30/11/2018. As such the contention of the applicant that he never had knowledge regarding the order passed on 13/09/2017 by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission can not be accepted at all. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the delay has taken place as the junior of the counsel did not inform the applicant but this reason or ground taken by the applicant also can not be accepted. Learned advocate for the non applicant has vehemently contended before me that in case ‘Sufficient cause’ is not shown, application for condonation of delay will have to be dismissed. He has also submitted that the ‘Sufficient cause’ can not be construe liberally. On this aspect Shri Barapatre learned advocate for non applicant has heavily relied upon one judgment in the case of Bappanand Narshimman Annu……..V/s…..Hirmanidevi G.S.Gupta & Ors. reported in 2016(4) CPR 447(NC), further he has also relied upon other judgments as follows :-
(1) Postal Department and Ors….....V/s…….N.U.Azam, reported in 2016(4) CPR 674 (NC).
(2) Anshul Aggarwal……V/s….New Okhla Industrial Development Auth, reported in IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC).
(3) Ludhiana Improvements Trust & Ors……V/s….Harwinder Kaur Khangura and Ors, reported in 2016(1) CPR 13 (NC).
4) I have gone through all these judgments. In all these judgments it has been observed that the delay has to be explained by giving sufficient cause and further the term ‘Sufficient cause’ can not construe liberally. Here in the present case there was delay of huge period of 707 days, but the reason given for the delay can not be termed as satisfactory or bonafide and so I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned advocate for applicant Shri Bansosd. I therefore pass the following order.
//ORDER//
- Delay condonation application is hereby rejected.
- Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
