UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

            The MA bearing No. 133 of 2017 is taken up for passing necessary order.

            Perused the MA. We had heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides .

            It appeared that with the instant MA , the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant prayed for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the complaint . The MA in question clarified the reason for delay as the Complainant’s not going well with his mental instability  which prevented him from observing the required formalities in due time so as to enable him to file the complaint within the given deadline . The Ld. Advocate attracted the notice of the Bench to the prescriptions in the name of the Petitioner /Complainant  attached with the instant MA which , as submitted , corroborated the illness of the Petitioner/Complainant at the relevant point of time.

            The Ld. Advocate , in view of his above submission, prayed for the complaint to be admitted for hearing.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent /OP objected to the prayer for condonation of delay and admission of the complaint filing his written objection wherein he pointed out that the illness which the Petitioner / Complainant claimed to be the reason for his delayed filing of  the complaint was absolutely baseless and false.

            In his objection, he went on to state further that the subject fund , the release of which has been prayed for in the instant complaint by the Respondent /OP Bank , could not be released by the Respondent /OP Bank so far since the said fund is kept withheld under order of the Hon’ble Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) , second Court , Burdwan in title suit No. 114 till the disposal of the said suit. The complaint , as contended , does not lie in the given circumstances .

            Moreover, as the Ld. Advocate continued , the MA in question did not offer any day to day explanation for the delay . Drawing attention to the dates of hearing of the Civil Suit in question , the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Petitioner/Complainant contested the Civil Suit during the period of his so called illness . As contended the illness, as referred to in the prescription, revealed that the Petitioner/Complainant suffered from some psychological set back  with manifestations like lack of energy , forgetfulness , loss of interest in everything, insomnia etc . which did not incapacitate a person for the little movement required for signing the complaints and sending the same to the appropriate Fora for filing through authorized person , particularly when , the Petitioner/Complainant did not show less interest in contesting the Civil Suit on the instant issue.

            Considered the submission of both sides. The arguments put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents /OPs appeared to have outweighed the same for the Applicant/Complainant .

            We too are of considered views that the reasons for long delay of 188 days in filing the complaint have not been sufficiently explained justifying its entitlement for acceptance.

            The MA /133/2017 , therefore, stands dismissed and consequently the complaint case CC/588/2016 also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.