1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 12.10.2022 in Appeal No. 1280 of 2013 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh arising out of Order dated 09.04.2013 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 188 of 2012.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 09.04.2013 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 12.10.2022 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition and the memo. of petition.

3.       It appears that the appeal which was pending in the State Commission since 2013 was dismissed in non-prosecution and the following Order was passed by the State Commission:

          “None for the appellant.

            Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

            This appeal is pending since 26.7.2023. On 5.5.2022 and 15.9.2022 also none appeared for appellant. There is no request/application on behalf of appellant to adjourn the matter.

            2. Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.       Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said Order the present petition has been filed but with a reported delay of 139 days.     

5.       An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  As the delay does not appear insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

6.       The submissions made by the learned counsel are no different from the grounds taken in the delay condonation application and they have been virtually repeated once again. Submission is that the petitioner acquired the knowledge of the impugned Order belatedly and the counsel for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the impugned Order.  Later on initially some restoration application was filed. However, after four or five months it was decided that the filing of revision is the requisite remedy and not filing of the restoration application and thus the revision was then filed.  Submission is that this is how the delay took place which should be condoned.  

7.         Ordinarily the Bench tends to adopt a liberal approach on the aspect of considering the point of delay and lean to take an indulgent view towards the side who seeks its condonation. The Bench prefers that a matter be decided on merits rather than be closed at the threshold stage i.e. on the ground of delay, but that does not imply that the Bench may ever ride roughshod over the statutory requirement regarding the law of limitation wherever it has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. That is why, whenever there is a delay, and whenever condonation on that aspect is sought, by either side, it has to discharge the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds relying upon which such delay may be condoned. It goes without saying that such explanation has to be genuine and not an explanation just for the sake of explanation. Anything and everything said to bridge up a considerable gap of delay is not to be termed as legitimate explanation, which has to be sincere, honest and persuasively adequate and worthy of credence.

8.     The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided.

9.       Having gone through the grounds taken in the delay condonation application the Bench feels constrained to observe that they fall far short of qualifying as sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The appeal itself has been pending since 2013 and deserved to be pursued in right earnest.  If under the law the revision was to be filed why the time was needlessly consumed to seek restoration and recall of the Order is unexplained.  The plea that the counsel did not inform about the fate of the case is again not a very palatable or a convincing explanation and appears to be more in the nature of an explanation for the sake of explanation as a matter of course.

           In the present case the Bench does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

10.     Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.