HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. 05

Date : 04.10.2024

    Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 13.10.2023, passed in CC/122/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 – Petitioner of this IA ICICI Home Finance Company has preferred Revision Petition No. 11 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 before this Commission praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022. The said Revisionist/Petitioner has also filed the instant IA Petition IA/84/2024 dated 05.06.2024 praying for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition No. 11 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 filed before this Commission.

     It has been asserted by the petitioner of the instant Petitioner of this IA (IA/84/2024) that within 90 days from the date of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/122/2022, the Revision Petition RP/11/2024 should have been preferred before this Commission i.e. by 11.01.2024 the said Revision Petition (RP/11/2024) should have preferred as per scopes of the C.P. Act of 2019 but the same could not be possible since the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 i.e. the Applicant of this IA i.e. the Revisionist/Petitioner of RP/11/2024, ICICI Home Finance Company was unaware uptill 15.05.2024 as to the coming into existence of the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.

    By filing the instant IA, the Applicant has submitted that for the first time on 15.05.2024 the certified copies of the relevant orders passed in CC/122/2022 could be available and at that point of time, the petitioner could come to know as to the existence of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022.

    It is the specific assertion of the petitioner of this IA that there was no malafide intention in causing intentional delay in the proceedings of the RP/11/2024 and CC/122/2022 where this petitioner has good case to substantiate against the OP of this IA/Complainant of CC/122/2022, Nandita Dhara.

    By filing an affidavit in support of this IA (IA/84/2024), the Petitioner of this IA prays for positive consideration of the same from the end of the Commission.

    Ld. Counsel for the OP of the instant IA resisted the Applicant’s instant IA, contending that there was inordinate and unexplained delay made by the Applicant of this IA in preferring Revision (RP/11/2024) on 31.05.2024 for assailing and seeking setting aside of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/122/2022 and since the said prolonged delay beyond the statutorily stipulated time span fixed for filing Revision (RP/11/2024) has remained unexplained and justified by the petitioner of this IA and the Revisionist/Petitioner as well, so there remains no basis to entertain the instant IA to lend scope to the Applicant/Petitioner to press for the consideration of the fate of the RP/11/2024.

Point for consideration

    Now it is to be ascertained and determined as to whether the instant IA (IA/84/2024) pressed from the end of the Applicant/Petitioner i.e. the Revisionist of RP/11/2024 deserves positive consideration or not.

Decision with reasons

    It appears from the materials on record that the applicant of this IA and the OP of this IA are contesting in CC/122/2022 since a considerable span of time from June 2022 and I find from the available materials of CC/122/2022 that over there, there were financial issues, existing as bone of contention and there have been ramifications of several issues in CC/122/2022, with the passage of time, and series of petitions are pending for disposal in CC/122/2022 and the contesting parties of CC/122/2022 who are the same, so contesting in this IA, are acquainted with those issues.

    It appears from the materials on record that against the orders dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 i.e. the present applicant of this IA intended to press the RP/11/2024 before this Commission.

    It appears further from this IA that the Applicant of this IA i.e. the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 claimed here that the applicant was not aware of the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman till 15.05.2024.

    However, the case record of CC/122/2022 reveals categorically that on 15.12.2023 i.e. on the next date of proceeding of CC/122/2022, after 13.10.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 was present when the order dated 15.12.2023 was passed in CC/122/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC. Had the Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022, been vigilent, he could be able to notice by 15.12.2023 that vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022, the petitions of OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 have been refused in CC/122/2022 and that refusal had paved the way for filing the instant RP/11/2024 by the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 before this Commission since the OP No. 5 of CC/122/2022 and the Revisionist/Petitioner of RP/11/2024 and the Applicant of this IA being ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. was the same and identical entity litigating in CC/122/2022, RP/11/2024 and IA/84/2024.

    So the assertion of the applicant of IA/84/2024 that the Applicant/Revisionist/Petitioner of RP/11/2024 was unaware as to the existence of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CC/122/2022 till 15.05.2024 is not appearing to be convincing one to be entertained to take such plea as a point for consideration for determination of the fate of this IA.

    Ld. Counsel for the applicant in support of the stand of the Applicant in this IA/84/2024 pressed the citation of CA 4104 of 2022 pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 17.05.2022. The Applicant side has also referred final order passed in Revision Petition No. 70 of 2018 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Chandigarh Punjab pronounced on 27.12.2018.

    I have my utmost regards to the cited reference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble SCDRC, Chandigarh as well. However, the factual matrix of the CC/122/2022 and the factual matrix of the case referred by the Hon’ble SCDRC Chandigarh are not alike, as I reekon and consider. There are series of judgements from the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in existence where stricter views are directed to be taken while dealing with condonation of delay petitions is positive note.

   It is needless to reiterate that for proper weighment of the substantial rights of the contesting parties of the CC/122/2022, for proper appreciation of the respective stands of the contesting parties in RP/11/2024, this Petition for condonation of delay in filing the RP/11/2024 before this Commission deserves to be considered in positive note.

    Accordingly, it is

                                      ORDERED

    That the instant IA/84/2024 filed by the Applicant/Revisionist petitioner of RP/11/2024, seeking condonation of delay in filing RP/11/2024 is considered and allowed on contest, without cost.

    In the premises, in view of the finding of the IA/84/2024, 10.01.2025 is fixed for hearing the RP/11/2024 of Revisionist/Petitioner ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd.

    The contesting parties of the RP/11/2024 must come ready on the date fixed.

    OP/Respondent of the RP/11/2024 is at liberty to file written objection against the Revision Petition No. 11 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 in the meantime, in this Commission in respect of the RP/11/2024 by serving copy of the same to the Revisionist/Petitioner of the concerned RP/11/2024.