Hon`ble Mrs. Dipa Sen (Maity), Presiding Member
Order No. 04
Both the Ld. Counsels for the respective parties are present.
In accordance with the previous order record is taken up for disposal of the application filed by the Appellants whereby they have made a prayer for condonation of delay of 919 days in preferring the present appeal.
We have scrutinized the materials available on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged a complaint case being no. CC/244/2019 before DCDRF, Unit-II, Kolkata u/s 12 of the Act on account of deficiency or negligence on the part of the Appellants/OPs in a dispute related to nonconvertible secured redeemable debentures and the final order/judgment passed on 15.11.2019 after ex parte hearing of the case.
Appellants have further submitted that due to ill health of the previous conducting Advocate, they were unable to file the appeal within stipulated period of time. The Appellants came to know about this matter when warrant has been issued by the Ld. Forum in execution case being no. EA/8/2020. Appellants made demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of Registrar, State Commission but due to the negligence of the previous Advocate, the Appellants could not prepare and file the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days and there was a delay 919 days in filing the present appeal. Appellants pray for condonation of delay as they have no willful negligence for filing this appeal otherwise the interest of Appellants will be highly prejudiced.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent did not file any w/o but vehemently raised his verbal objection.
On scrutiny of record we find that the impugned ex parte judgment passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II on 15.11.2019. The present Appellants applied for certified copy of judgment on 16.06.2022 and obtained the same on 19.06.2022 after that the appeal has been filed by Appellants before the State Commission on 28.06.2022. On perusal of the judgment of Ld. DCDRF, it appears that despite of service of notice the OP did not turn up to contest the case as such, the case has proceeded and heard ex parte against them.
Careful reading of Section describing limitation period clearly reveals that the complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such stipulated period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, records its reason for condoning such delay.
It also clearly appearsfrom the perusal that the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission is not bound to admit each and every case. There must be sufficient reasons for not filing the Appeal within limitation period of 45 days but in the present petition praying for condonation of delay Appellants have not stated sufficient ground for condoning of such enormous delay of 919 days which is beyond the statutory period of limitation of 45 days. Vicarious health condition of conducting Advocate of the Appellants cannot be considered as a sufficient reason for condonation of such inordinate period of delay. Moreover, day to day explanation has not been assigned in the body of the present petition.
In our opinion the cause shown by Appellants for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of time is wholly unsatisfactory.
Therefore, we reject the present application for condonation of delay without any costs.
Consequently, the appeal being no. 124/2022 also hereby is dismissed as being time barred.
Stay application vide I.A No. 742/2022 stands rejected being infructuous.
