Hon’Ble Mr. Sudeb Mitra, Presiding Member 

Order No. : 02

Date : 12.05.2023

Today was fixed for appearance of both sides in this instant IA and hearing of this said in which the appellant/petitioner Manik Chandra Das had prayed for condonation of delay in filing the instant Appeal A/19/2023.

It appears, at present that the appellant/petitioner of the instant IA (appellant of A/19/2019) Manik Chandra Das is absent without step and none appears from his end on calls on the other hand, it appears that the respondent of A/19/2023 i.e. OP/respondent of instant IA/26/2023 Sri Bishnupada Mondal is being present by taking step.

No cogent reason has been assigned from the end of the petitioner – appellant Manik Chandra Das justifying his absence in this Commission today.

For hearing of the IA, pressed from his end.

At this stage, in present of the respondent this IA has been taken up for hearing on merit.

The case record reveals that by filing the instant IA, the appellant-petitioner Manik Chandra Das had prayed for condonation of delay in filing this Appeal A/19/2023 and contended that U/Sec. 41 of C.P. Act 2019 against the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in CC 6 of 2016, he has preferred the instant Appeal A/19/2023 and sought for condonation of delay in filing this Appeal. Contending that the delay was 229 days from the date of delivery of judgment dated 29.06.2022 of CC/6/2020. The petitioner/appellant had pressed that from 13.08.2022 to 30.09.2022 Ld. Advocate for the appellant kept himself idle and had not filed the appeal and from 01.10.2022 to 10.10.2022 there was 10 days Puja Vacation and, thereafter, from 11.10.2022 to 29.03.2023 i.e. for a span of more than 150 days (approx.) his advocate had also kept idle and had not filed the Appeal and by pressing this petition the appellant-petitioner had contended that since there was no latches from his end in filing this Appeal so his prayer for condonation of delay in filing this Appeal may be entertained so that he may get a scope to contest in this Appeal.

It appears from the materials on record that this CC/6/2020 was filed on 20.01.2020 as the digitalized copy of the LCR of CC/6/2020 reveals.

It, therefore, automatically appears that prior to the coming of course of C.P. Act 2019 with effect from 24.07.2020, the CC/6/2020 was filed against the appellant – petitioner and as per scope of C.P. Act 1986 and as per Sec. 15 of the C.P. Act of 1986 any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum had the scope to prefer an appeal against the said order before the State Commission with a period of 30 days from the date of order. In such form and manner has been prescribed. Accordingly time stipulated for filing Appeal against the judgement of CC/6/2020 governed by the C.P. Act 1986 has been 30 days  and not 45 days as stipulated in C.P. Act 2019 the instant petition of the appellant/petitioner in this IA Sri Manik Chandra Das did not assign any cogent reason whatsoever to lend support and justifying the delay in filing the instant Appeal A/19/2023 against the judgement of CC/6/2020 (dated 29.06.2022) and for that reason we do not find any merit in entertaining the petition of the appellant – petitioner to entertain this prayer for condonation of delay in filing this Appeal and accordingly the prayer for condonation of delay in filing this appeal pressed by the petitioner – appellant Manik Chandra Das stands rejected on merit on hearing.

The instant IA/26/2023 stands dismissed on merit and disposed off accordingly.