Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/655

M/S PRATIK DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI NARAYAN PANDIT KATPE - Opp.Party(s)

MRS J AHWAD

08 Oct 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/655
(Arisen out of Order Dated 22/03/2010 in Case No. 279/07 of District Pune)
1. M/S PRATIK DEVELOPERSR/AT 251 SHUKRAWAR PETH PUNE 411002PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. SHRI NARAYAN PANDIT KATPE AT 195 NAVI PRTH PUNE 4110302. MISS SONAL N KAPTER/AT 195 NAVI PETH PUNE PUNE MAHARASHTRA 3. MISS SHAILESH B KHAPTE195 NAVI PETH PUNE PUNE MAHARASHTRA4. SHRI MAHENDRA DHAVERCHAND KHIVNSARAS NO 16 DHANKAWADI PUNE 411 043PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :MRS J AHWAD , Advocate for the Appellant 1 V.V.Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:-

Heard.  In filing this appeal there is delay of 40 days.  For seeking condonation of delay, an application is filed which is supported by an affidavit.  In condonation of delay application, charges are leveled against Adv.Mr.R.Daundkar.  In fact, when the complaint is allowed or dismissed in any Forum, the authority of advocate comes to an end and therefore, perusing the matter with the same advocate when he was not cooperating is an exercise of futility.  We have carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay.  We do not find good and sufficient cause in explaining the delay of 40 days.  The whole of the blame is sought to be put on action or inaction of Adv.Dandekar.  In fact, it was the duty of the appellant to ensure that appeal be filed within time.  The appellant has consumed more than 70 days which includes initial 30 days which is statutory period within which appeal should be filed.  We are not satisfied with the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                        :-ORDER-:

1.           M.A.No.341/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2.           Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.

3.           Parties are left to bear their own costs.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 08 October 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member