ORAL IA 10066 of 2018 (condonation of delay) 1. Arguments heard on this Application whereby the Petitioner has sought condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the Revision Petition on the ground that although the Petitioner belongs to West Bengal but for the treatment of his disease Thalassemia, with which he was suffering since 2004, he was in Vellore and therefore, had no knowledge of the delivery of the certified copy of the impugned order at his residential -2- address in mid November 2017. He contacted his Counsel who is residing in Delhi in the month of April 2018 and thereafter, the present Revision Petition was filed. He has prayed for condonation of delay of 74 days. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the delay is not of 74 days; it is more than 100 days and that it is a wrong contention in the application that the delay is of 74 days. It is further submitted that no document has been placed on record by the Petitioner to show that he was in Vellore from November 2017 till April 2018. It is further argued that even he has not disclosed in the application the date on which he learnt of the passing of the impugned order. It is prayed that the application has no merits and be dismissed. 3. I have heard the arguments and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is settled proposition of law that the person who is seeking condonation of delay has to explain the delay of each and every day by showing sufficient cause which prevented from him filing the Revision Petition within the period of limitation. The averment made in para (3) of the application itself shows that the Petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the order dated 18.10.2017 and therefore, he had the knowledge of the passing of the impugned order at the time when he applied for the certified copy. It is also evident that in the application -3- there is no averment about the date on which he came to know of the passing of the impugned order. He states that from November 2017 to April 2018 he was in Vellore but the documents of his treatment placed on record are dated 20.03.2018 and 21.04.2018 and no document of treatment between November 2017 to March 2018 has been placed on record. After finishing the arguments on this application, learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought an adjournment stating that he would file these documents. Even the filing of the documents is not going to help him because the period of limitation of 90 days for filing the Revision Petition started running from the date of knowledge of the passing of the impugned order which certainly was within the knowledge of the Petitioner when he had applied for the certified copy. The period of limitation therefore expired after 90 days and no explanation for not being able to file the present Revision Petition within the period of limitation has been specifically explained by disclosing sufficient cause. Moreover, it is a wrong averment in the Application that the delay was of 74 days while the delay actually is about 116 days as per the Registry. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has clearly held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where no sufficient reasons are shown, the Court/Commission has no other -4- discretion but to dismiss the application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 6. The test to be applied is that the parties should be able to show that they have acted with reasonable diligence. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) as under. "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” -5- 7. In “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly stated that while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the special nature of the Act shall also be kept in mind. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora." 8. From the above facts, it is apparent that the Petitioner has failed to produce on record the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. The application has no merits and the same is dismissed. 9. Since the Revision Petition is barred by limitation and the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and the delay is not condoned, the present Revision Petition is also dismissed. | 
