Heard Mr. A.K. Bandapadhyay assisted by Mr. G. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

            Seen and perused the petition for condonation of delay of 1092 days made by the petitioner/appellant in this case. By citing a number of decisions of the Apex Court and of the National Commission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that in fact there has not been any delay.

            Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant. He has submitted that notice was received by the present petitioner/appellant, issued by the District Forum, Kamrup,  in C.P. C. Case No. 48/09. They did not appear in the case and hence, the District Forum had to pass ex-parte order on 19-01-2011. Then execution started and then also the present petitioner/appellant did not appear and recourse had to be taken for their appearance by substituted service i.e. publication in newspaper. Then and then only, the present petitioner/appellant entered appearance and resisted the petition in execution. He has further submitted that the District Forum rejected the prayer of the present petitioner/appellant and vide its order dated 23-5-2013 ordered execution of its order dated 19-01-2011.

            Then the present petitioner/appellant approached this State Commission under Section 27(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in F.A. 32/2013. This Commission dismissed the appeal on 18-11-2013 upholding the judgment of the District Forum.

            Hence, by preferring the present appeal, the original judgment dated 19-01-2011 has been challenged. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the delay has to be calculated from 19-01-2011.  As calculated by the present petitioner/appellant delay is about 1092 days. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there is nothing from the petition or from the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant for this Commission to arrive at a finding that there was no delay in filing the appeal.

            The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has argued that once the appellant side tried to send a draft in the name of the complainant of the C.P. Case before the District Forum and it could not be so done due to absence of the parties. He has further submitted that the delay can be calculated from the date which this Commission dismissed the appeal No. F.A. 32/2013.

            We have gone through the judgment of this Commission and we find that there has not been a word in the judgment for waiving the time spent by the party in preferring the appeal or contesting the execution case. The judgment is very much clear that instead of regular appeal, party has preferred an appeal under section 27(A) and as such, the appeal was not maintainable .

            After going through the above discussion and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of considered opinion that the delay has not at all been explained; no question of proper explanation. We find no ground to allow the petition. It is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal No. F.A. 1/14 stands dismissed.

            There is another petition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant for stay of execution of the ex-party order dated 19-01-2011. When we have dismissed the appeal and the Misc case for condonation of delay, there is nothing for this Commission to allow the petition for stay of execution. That petition is also rejected.

            The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner/appellant shall be returned to the petitioner/appellant.