The present revision petition has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 63 days. The Registry, however, has informed that the delay is of 67 days.

    Argument on this application i.e. IA7451/2019 has been heard. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay had occurred due to administrative reasons. After receiving the impugned order, the matter was referred to higher officer for scrutiny and thereafter the matter was referred for legal opinion to the local counsel. The matter was received by the counsel at Delhi in the month of April, 2019. The counsel found that some of the documents were not legible and he demanded the fair copies which were given to him only in last week of April, 2019. On this ground it is prayed that the delay be condoned. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is a settled proposition of law that it is the duty of the applicant/petitioner who has come before the court, seeking condonation of delay to explain the delay of each and every day by giving sufficient cause for condonation of such delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510” has explained the meaning of sufficient cause which is as under:

“ Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".  However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412)

12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.  

15.    The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.  No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also 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 it is mandatory on the part of the applicant to explain sufficient cause which prevented him from coming to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further held that where sufficient cause are not shown, the Courts are justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

  “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.”

The basic test to be applied is that the parties should be able to show that they have acted with reasonable diligence. In the case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC). Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"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.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also warned this Commission in the matters covered under the Consumer Protection Act, to always keep in mind the special nature of the period of limitation provided therein while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“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."

In the present case, the only ground for condonation of delay relates to the administrative reasons on the part of the petitioner. We are satisfied that no sufficient ground for condonation of delay showing reasons which prevented the petitioner from coming to the Court within the period of limitation, has been explained in the application. Application is dismissed. Consequently, the petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.