1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 09.06.2020 in Appeal No. 169 of 2020 of the State Commission Punjab arising out of Order dated 19.08.2019 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 224 of 2018.

2.       It appears that feeling aggrieved by the District Commission’s order dated 19.08.2019 the appeal was filed in the State Commission with delay. The State Commission refused to condone the delay and the same was dismissed by the State Commission on the point of limitation. As the delay condonation application was dismissed the appeal too was dismissed as its legal sequel.

3.       The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal.

4.       Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Bench to the delay condonation application which was moved before the State Commission and has also reiterated the grounds that were taken in the delay condonation application. Submission is that the actual cause of delay lies in the wrong advice given by the counsel who was looking after the matter then. As per the advice that was given the petitioner filed an execution application in the District Commission at the first instance. A lot of time got consumed in that process. Subsequently when the petitioner got  in touch with another counsel he pointed out the erroneous step taken on behalf of petitioner in the form of execution proceedings. It was advised at a later stage that the only prudent legal course that ought to have been adopted was to file and appeal as the order passed by the District Commission needed modification. It was only upon getting better legal advice by another counsel that the appeal could be filed. Submission is that the petitioner is not a law knowing person and in good faith acted upon the advice that was given to it. Contention is that it is manifestly clear that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate nor was there any mala fide motive for not filing the appeal in time. Submission is that if the petitioner could move the execution application and pursue the same, there was no reason why it would not have filed the appeal similarly. But that course could not be adopted just for the reason that legal advice to that effect was never tendered. Submission is that this is the candid explanation and keeping in view the pragmatic state of affairs as prevailed and the legal literacy of the petitioner the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission ought to have been condoned as this explanation furnishes sufficient cause which is neither implausible nor incredible.

5.       Another limb of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that even though the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation yet the State Commission has delved deep into the facts of the case and has meticulously entered into the entire factual matrix of the case including not only the version of the complainant but also the defence taken up by the opposite parties. Even the details of the evidence adduced has also been narrated thoroughly in the order. Submission is that such a course is supposed to be adopted only when the State Commission found good reason to condone the delay. If the delay itself was not being condoned there was hardly any occasion for the State Commission to have undertaken such an exercise. It has been contended that this is an anomalous feature evincing out from the impugned order.

6.       Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to defend the impugned order and has submitted that the wrong legal advice should not be deemed to be a legitimate explanation to condone the delay as ignorance of law is not a good excuse. However, learned counsel for the respondents has been fair enough to admit that the State Commission has not decided the appeal on merits even though the entire facts relating to the case have been gone into at quite some length by the State Commission.

7.       Perused the record including inter alia the impugned order passed by the State Commission as also the application that was moved seeking the condonation of delay in the State Commission.

8.       The perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the entire facts of the case which includes the complainant’s version, the defence version of the opposite party as well as the evidence available on record has all been narrated in a full fledged manner by the State Commission. It is only after dealing with all the facts and narrating the entire evidentiary aspect of the matter, in the last part of the order the delay condonation application has been dealt with and the State Commission did not find it fit to condone the delay. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation that has been proffered on the part of the petitioner, the Bench is of the view that after dealing into the facts of the case at such length it would have been better for the State Commission to condone the delay and passed order on the merits of the case. The manner in which the order has been written makes it a kind of half-baked order which even though deals with all the factual contours of the case still does not adjudicate upon its merits. There was hardly any need to discuss the evidence if the appeal was eventually going to be dismissed on the ground of delay. So far as the explanation regarding the wrong advice given by the counsel is concerned it appears to be an undisputed fact that actually an execution application was moved in the District Commission and it is not a fact that may be doubted. It also appears to be a matter of fact that after exhausting quite some time at that level of execution, the appeal was filed in the State Commission. The imprudent advice that was given to the petitioner is apparent on the face of record. This bench certainly agrees with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that ignorance of law is not a legitimate defence but in the conspicuous facts and circumstances and the ground that have been taken in the delay condonation application and also keeping in perspective the fact that the State Commission did enter into all the factual aspects of the case at length, it would have been more appropriate that the delay ought to have been condoned and the matter ought to have been adjudicated on its merits rather than thwart it at the threshold of limitation.

9.       In view of the afore-said discussion the appeal stands allowed. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the request to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity to both the sides.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.10.2023.  

It goes without saying that nothing in this order ought to be considered as any expression on the intrinsic merits of the case and this order must not be construed so as to cause any prejudice against or in favour of any of the parties. 

10.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.