Order no. 5 Date:24-10-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellants.

By such petition, it is stated by the Appellants that due to administrative problem at their end, they did not contest the case before the Ld. District Forum and they came to know of the ex parte order after getting notice of the Execution case from the Ld. District Forum on 18-01-2017.  Thereafter, the Appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 02-02-2017 and obtained the same on 06-02-2017.  Subsequently, the same was handed over to the conducting Ld. Advocate, who took 6 days to prepare the Memo of Appeal.  Ultimately, the Appeal was filed before this Commission on 15-02-2017. 

Heard the Ld. Advocates on the issue and perused the material on record.

It is indeed surprising that the Appellants, despite receipt of notice of the complaint case, did not appear before the Ld. District Forum to defend their case.  It is always desirable of a law abiding person/institution/organization that he/she/it would show due respect to a Court of Law and act in accordance with the true spirit of the law.  Therefore, while due notice was served upon them, it was incumbent on their part to appear before the Ld. District Forum and defend their case.

Notwithstanding the Appellants attributed their absence to ‘Administrative problem’, it is important to keep in mind that such over simplification does not properly explain the true nature/gravity of predicament that prevented the Appellants from defending their case before the Ld. District Forum on the dot. Surely, we cannot foster a situation where one would take notices issued by District Forum so casually. 

Further, it is the statutory requirement of the defaulter to show ‘sufficient cause’ behind delayed filing of an Appeal which is not done here.  In fact, we find that although the Appellants admittedly got notice of the execution case on 18-01-2017, they applied for certified of the impugned order on 02-02-2017.  Again, although the Ld. District Forum made the certified copy ready on 02-02-2017 itself, they collected the same on 06-02-2017.  The Appellants have not assigned any justification for such delayed action although it was obligatory on their part to justify each day delay. 

Accordingly, the delay of 110 days in filing this Appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation cannot be allowed. The petition, thus, stands rejected.  Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.