O R D E R    S H E E T

DATE OF ORDER

 ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR ON OFFICE NOTING

27.04.2019

                  Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants.

                  Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 3.

                  None for respondent no.4.

                  Heard learned counsel for parties on IA-1, application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.  The delay is of one year eight months and eighteen days. To explain the delay the appellant has made following statement:

                   That the instant appeal is barred by 1 years 10 months because of the reason that the appellants are the scientist in the tropical forest research institute Jabalpur and in most of the time he remains out of station for the purpose of research.  When the judgment passed by the learned Distt. Consumer Forum Jabalpur both the appellant are in out of station and for such purpose they were unable to file the instant appeal within limitation. The copy of inaugural session of program is filed

-2-

with this application.

              That the appellants got the knowledge of award when she met the counsel on dated 26.01.2012 then without any delay they instructed to their counsel to file appeal before the state appellate forum.

             That the appellants are the scientist and therefore they have very less time to met with in counsel therefore the instant appeal is not file with the limitation period and is barred by 1 years 10 months delay.

            That the reason assigned in above paras are not willful but bonafide and is therefore prayed for condonation of delay.

             The aforesaid reasons indicate that the appellant is a scientist and at the relevant time was posted in Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur and for his duties he frequently use to go out of Jabalpur and as such he could not contact his counsel and he got very less time to meet the counsel.

               Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for condonation and argued that no sufficient cause has been made out to explain huge delay.

                                   -3-

               Having gone through the reasons stated in the application we are of the view that the same cannot be termed as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. The inordinate delay of one year eight months and eighteen days remains unexplained.   In the circumstances, the application deserves and is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)   (Dr.Monika Malik)

              President                             Member