Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 211 days, which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgment & order dated17/08/2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/06/25.
2. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the application under order and the copy of impugned judgment & order.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Vora, Ld. Counsel for the applicant / appellant that there was such delay in filing the appeal as the case papers were misplaced at the office of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi from Mumbai. It is submitted that on receipt of the copy of impugned judgment and order on 30/08/2006 the case papers were handed over to Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi for drafting and presentation of the appeal but the appeal was not filed. When the officials of appellant-Bank contacted Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, they were informed by the Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi that the case papers were misplaced in his office and therefore he could not file the appeal. Thereafter, when the case papers were found at the office of said counsel. Hence, this appeal is filed along with this application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the officials of the appellant-Bank but as the case papers were misplaced in the office of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, there was such delay. Accordingly, it is submitted to condone the delay.
4. Per contra, Mr Linge, Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant / respondent submitted that there is no just & reasonable ground to condone the delay. It is submitted that no case papers were misplaced. According to him if the case papers were misplaced in the office of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi it would not have found as averred by the applicant/appellant-Bank. It is submitted that the applicant/ appellant –Bank has created false ground for condonation of delay, etc. It is submitted to dismiss the application.
5. On perusal of application under order we find much force in the submission of Mr. Linge, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, if the case papers were misplaced in the office of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, he would have immediately informed the applicant/appellant- Bank and in such event the appellant-Bank could have filed the appeal within the period of limitation by collecting other case papers. In our view the applicant/appellant –Bank would not have remained silent for long period more than 200 days. Moreover, as submitted by Mr. Linge, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, if case papers would have misplaced it would not have found at the office of Adv. Mr. A. S. Vidyarthi.
6. Moreover, except the bare contention of the applicant/appellant-Bank that the case papers were misplaced in the office of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, no affidavit of Adv. Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi or his Clerk in support of such contention is filed on record. Therefore, in the absence of any such supporting document it is difficult to accept the bare contention of the applicant/appellant-Bank.
7. For the forgoing reasons, we find no just and reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. If such inordinate delay is condoned in the absence of any just and reasonable ground the very object of legislature would be defeated. Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following the order.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
1. Misc. Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/07/394 is dismissed..
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:-10/07/2012.
