PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission dated 10.10.2011 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner for non prosecution has preferred Revision Petition No. 1852  of  2012.  The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with delay of 70 days.  The petitioner has thus moved the application for condonation of delay.

2.       The reason given for delay in filing of revision petition is that on the receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner sent relevant papers to his counsel at his Delhi address.  The counsel for the petitioner, however, at the relevant time had gone to his native place at ‘Salem’ because of unfortunate demise of his father.  When he returned to Delhi after performing last rites of his father, he studied those papers and prepared the revision petition.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the above, it would  be seen that delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred because the relevant papers pertaining to the proceedings and order of the State Commission could not reach the counsel for the petitioner in time. Thus it is urged that delay in filing of revision be condoned and revision petition be disposed of on merits.

3.       We are not convinced with the aforesaid explanation given for delay of 70 days in filing of revision petition.  Perusal of the application of condonation of delay would show that application is vague.  It does not spell out the name of the counsel to whom the alleged papers for filing the revision petition were sent at Delhi address nor the date on which the papers were dispatched have been mentioned.  There is no mention about the date of death of father of concerned counsel for the petitioner nor it is disclosed as to during what period the counsel for the petitioner remained out of Delhi and when he came to get hold of the papers allegedly sent by the petitioner.  Application is not even supported by death certificate of father of counsel for the petitioner nor the specific affidavit in this regard has been filed.  That being the case, we are of the view that explanation for delay caused given in the application is a make- belief story which cannot be accepted. 

4.       Otherwise also the petitioner has even been negligent in pursuing the complaint.  From the order of District Forum dated 29.06.2007, it is evident that complaint was fixed for final hearing on 22.06.2007 and on that date, the petitioner did not put an appearance either in person or through counsel and the matter was heard ex-parte against petitioner no.2.  Even thereafter during the appellate proceedings, the petitioner failed to put any appearance on the relevant date which resulted in dismissal of appeal for non prosecution.  That too did not stir the petitioner out of slumber and he took his own time in filing the revision petition after a long delay of 70 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days.  This would show that petitioner has been negligent in pursuing his course.  This is a clear case of inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner.

5.       It is well settled that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to examine whether or not the delay in filing of revision / appeal stands properly explained.  This is the basic test which needs to be applied.  In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay of 70 days caused in filing of the petition.  Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of revision petition after the expiry of period of limitation.  In our aforesaid view, we are supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal & Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, R.B.Ramlingam V. R.B.Bhavaneshwari I (2009) SLT 701 and Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC). 

6.       In view of the discussion above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.