1. This revision petition under section 21(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the interim order dated 12.07.2019 in First Appeal No. A/655/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengal, Kolkata (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising out of order dated 27.10.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 399 of 2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata -1 (North), (in short, the ‘District Forum’). 2. The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that the complainant along with other co-owners of premises in No. 26/1B, Sabji Bagan Lane, P.S. Chetla, Kolkota 700027 entered into a Development Agreement dated 14.06.2006 with respondent no. 1 represented by its partners, respondents 2 and 3. Vide this Agreement, petitioner and his brother, Subir Kumar Chatterjee, were jointly entitled to 300 sq ft super built up area on the first floor of the premises. The respondents failed to hand over the said premises, despite receipt of a letter dated 22.06.2011 issued by the petitioner. Possession was, however, handed over to other purchasers in the building. The petitioners were compelled to file a complaint before the District Forum. Despite notices, the respondent failed to file his written version despite entering appearance through an advocate. Petitioner was allowed to amend his complaint on 12.06.2014. Respondent failed to file additional written version even after notice dated 31.07.2014. Vide order dated 27.10.2016 the District Forum allowed the complaint, on contest, with costs and the respondents were directed to provide a flat measuring 300 sq ft on the first floor of the said building within 30 days. They were also directed, jointly and severally, to pay Rs 70,000/- as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs 10,000/-, failing which petitioners were liable to get interest @ 10% p.a. till realization. The State Commission, in appeal filed by the respondent, condoned the delay of 594 days as per record relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353 on the ground that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. This order is challenged before this Commission by way of the instant revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. When the matter was listed for final arguments on 09.05.2023, the learned counsel for the respondents present initially submitted that he was to receive instructions in the matter. He thereafter left the court room without intimation. He is therefore placed ex parte. 4. This revision petition assails the order of the State Commission condoning the delay of 594 days in filing the appeal before it. Admittedly, the delay of 594 days is inordinate. The moot issue is whether the delay condonable under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay according to the Ld Counsel for the appellant ascribable to the fact that respondents were not attending the proceedings before the District Forum despite notice and had to be proceeded against ex parte. Appellant contends that the respondent started to pressurise the appellant for execution of registering the deed of conveyance in his favour and that though the flat in question belonged to the respondent and his brother, the respondent had filed the complaint alone and misled the District Forum. Respondent was unable to contact his brother several times between 2017 and 2018. The appellants/ respondents were ready to compromise with the respondents and resolve the issue. However, the respondent ceased contact with the appellant and Police personnel came to house of the appellant nos. 2 and 3 to execute a warrant of arrest issued appellants by the District Forum. 5. From the record it is apparent that an execution application was filed by the respondent and his brother. However, the complaint was filed by respondent alone. Hence, petitioner contends that the respondents misled the District Forum. The Appellant’s Advocate, on instruction, applied for certified copies of the records and received the same on 11.07.2018. The appellant fairly states that the delay is of 624 days, including the statutory period of 30 days. The effective delay is, therefore, of 594 days. 6. The petitioner argued that the State Commission erroneously condoned the delay in filing of the appeal since the reasons for the delay did not show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation. It was argued that the State Commission erred in relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. as it is distinguishable and has no relevance to the present case. The respondents failed to comply with the order in the Execution Application before the District Forum resulting in a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) dated 18.06.2018 being issued by it. 7. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3. In Anshul Aggarwal (supra) the Apex Court held that condonation of delay by Consumer fora must keep the special period of limitation provided in view of the objective of expeditious disposal. Reliance is also placed on (i) R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 wherein it was held that “The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition” ; (ii) D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 322 that “court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only” and (iii) Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 dated 08.07.2010 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors., AIR 1994 Punjab & Haryana 45. Finally, reliance is also placed on Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 held that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right. 8. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata I (North) (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint Case no. CC/12/ 399 dated 27.10.2016 has held as under: “It is ordered, that the complaint case no. 399 of 2012 is allowed on contest with cost. The OPs are directed to provide a flat measuring 300 sq ft super built-up area in the 1st Floor of the said building execute deed within 30 days from this day and the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation of Rs.70,000/- and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the said period failing which the complainants will be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum till the realisation of the said amount”. 9. From the record it is manifest that the State Commission in the impugned order considered the delay of 624 days including the statutory period of 30 days for filing appeal. After hearing both parties, the State Commission held as under: In the given scenario, it appears to me that though there has been delay of 594 days (as per office record) in filing the appeal, yet it is required to be heard on merit because no order can be passed without giving opportunity of being heard against a person who has some interests over the said property. In a decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 [Collector, Land Acquisition Anantanag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have wasted right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Considering the above, the application for condonation of delay is, thus, allowed on contest and disposed of accordingly The appeal is admitted and registered. 10. The impugned order of the State Commission does not bring out any reasons advanced by the respondent to justify the delay satisfactorily except that (a) no order can be passed without giving opportunity of being heard against a person who has some interests over the said property and (b) when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. The order is silent on the reasons on the basis of which the State Commission has concluded that the delay was “non deliberate”. Apart from any absence of any specific pleading or evidence to establish the reasons for the delay to be ‘non-deliberate’, the order of the State Commission fails to set out any cogent reasoning for arriving at the conclusion of the delay as being ‘non deliberate’ except its reliance on the judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantanag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. 11. It is a settled position of law that condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963 needs to be satisfactorily explained for every day of delay and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and courts can exercise their discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown. The Apex Court has held as under: “12. 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 power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 12. It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 wherein the Hon’ble Court laid down that: "5. 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.” 13. Subsequently, in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as below: “5. 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." 14. In the instant case, the delay in filing of the appeal before the State Commission has not been explained by way of sufficient and reasonable cause to justify the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 594 days has not been satisfactorily explained. The IA of 2018 seeking condonation of delay before the State Commission only states as the reason for the delay to be that they were not issued a notice by the District Forum and were proceeded against ex parte. However, the order of District Forum records that the opposite parties/ petitioners herein contested the matter through a written version. They were, therefore, very much noticed and were represented. The arguments, therefore, do not explain the delay of approximately 19.8 months in filing the revision petition. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order of the State Commission is manifestly unjustifiable and clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The order is accordingly set aside and the matter remanded to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties through a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above. The State Commission is also directed to endeavour to decide the matter within a period of six months. 9. Parties shall appear before the State Commission concerned on 18th August 2023. | 
