ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the impugned Order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the State Commission in FAIA No.533 of 2024 in FASR No. 1752 of 2024 arising out of the Order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the District Commission in Complaint No. 473 of 2021. 2. It appears that the complaint was filed before the District Commission, which was allowed ex parte as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner / opposite party despite exhausting all modes of services including the service through publication. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the State Commission with a huge delay of 625 days. It appears that hence the petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The State Commission did not find any merits in the condonation petition and refused to condone the same. The condonation application was dismissed with cost. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the State Commission, application seeking condonation of delay filed before the State Commission and the memo of petition. 5. Submission of the learned counsel is on the same line which was adopted before the State Commission. It is submitted that the petitioner did not reside at the given address and so the service of the notice could not be effected on him. It has also been submitted that the publication mode of service also proved ineffective because publication was not done in the newspaper prevalent in the area of petitioner’s residence. Learned counsel has also tried to submit that in the initial agreement executed between the complainant and the petitioner it was agreed upon to deal with the disputes in the Courts where such property lies but which was not done in the present case. Emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner lives at a different address where no service of notice was done. The contention is that because of having different address, the petitioner acquired the knowledge of passing of the Order passed by the District Commission at belated stage and therefore the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation before the State Commission. Submission is that, therefore, the State Commission should have condoned the delay and should have heard the appeal on merits. 6. In order to facilitate better appreciation of the matter, some relevant extracts of the impugned Order are being quoted herein below which read as follows: (03). The brief averments of counter affidavit RI / Complainant are that the petition is devoid of merits and filed to cause wrongful loss to the respondent/complainant; that the passport copy of the petitioner shows, his address as mentioned in the complainant which is true and correct; that the petitioner in the register sale deed No.5836/2019 dated 31.08.2019, sale deed 538/2020 dated 28.01.2020, sale deed no.5770/2019 dated. 31.08.2019, mentioned his address which is similar to address mentioned in the complaint; that the petitioner filed the vakalat through his counsel in IA. No. 1/2022 in WP No 46320/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana as 6th respondent shows he is actively prosecuting in the case, that only after the respondent / complainant filed EA No.52/2024 in CC 473/2021 and when it was posted for first hearing 06.05.2024 the present appeal is filed with false averments, that the petitioner filed caveat notice which was received by respondent 11.05.2019 in which the petitioner mentioned incomplete address. With this requested to dismiss the petition with costs. 09. The passport issued in favour of petitioner / opposite party is valid up to year 2021. In which his address is mentioned as resident of Kakatiya Nagar, Kukatpally. In the register sale deed dated 28.01.2020 vide document No.538/2020, the address of the petitioner is mentioned as resident of Plot No. 771, Vasantha Nagar, Kukatpally. The order in writ petition 46320 of 2022 dated 03.04.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana shows the address of petitioner (as R6) as resident of plot no 771, Vasanth Nagar, Bhagth Singh Nagar, Hyderabad. Petitioner made in appearance in the writ petition through an advocate and contesting in the same and those documents are clear enough to show that petitioner is resident of Plot NO.771, Bhagth Singh Nagarnear Vasanth Nagar), Kukatpally, Hyderabad. It shows that even in the years 2019, 2021 and 2022 the petitioner is residing in the address as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner by taking advantage of another address mentioned in the complaint now denying about the knowledge about the notice given to his admitted address and also denying his knowledge regarding the order of ex-parte decree. There is a considerable force in the arguments of respondent/complainants that the Petitioner/Opposite Party is having multiple address and due to the same causing confusion in the minds of public at large who are dealing with him. As there are no bonafieds in the petition the same is liable for dismissal, for the reason that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his mischief. The appeal is filed within one month from the date of alleged knowledge Therefore, we are of the view that it is a fit case to dismiss the petition. 7. We have given our careful consideration to all the pleadings and the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not difficult to see that the plea of having different address stands quite belied as the same address has been shown in a number of documents which have also been referred to by the State Commission in detail. This plea of having a different address has been analysed, weighed and discussed very succinctly and properly by the State Commission. It shall only be a duplication of the reasonings if we once again rewrite the same all over. Suffice it to observe that we do not see any good reason to take a different view of the matter on the aspect of petitioner having a different address and we see reason to concur with the findings of the State Commission in this regard. 8. We would also like to point out that the copy of the certified copy of the District Commission’s Order shows a specific stamp affixed on it which shows that the certified copy of the District Commission’s Order was made ready on 26.05.2022 and the same was also despatched on the same date. The said stamp also specifically contains the note that the certified copy of the Order was delivered on 30.05.2022. In view of the specific entries made in the stamp regarding despatch and delivery of the Order of the District Commission, it is not difficult to see that the plea of belated acquisition of knowledge is a mendacious plea lacking the element of truth and genuineness which gives another blow to the tenability or credibility of such plea. 9. It may be observed that normally in matters like this we resort to a stance which leans favourably towards the defaulting petitioner who fails to file the petition within the limitation period. It is ordinarily preferred not to adopt a pedantic approach but to proceed with a pragmatic view and to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation. But while saying so Commission should not be understood to mean or to imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided by the Act can either be blissfully ignored or be soft paddled at will. Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment of the law of limitation. The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided, has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with. In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period. It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the given Fora looking into the matter that there were actually justifiable reasons which go to explain as to why the petition was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the commission cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion, which even this Commission exercises in the matters of condonation of delay, is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative; it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously. The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the petitioner who seeks judicial indulgence in this regard. While undertaking the exercise of such evaluation the Bench also tries to make due allowances on pragmatic considerations and eschews from insisting on day-to-day explanation of the delay. But that must also not be misconstrued to imply that in the name of pragmatic considerations any party can claim to have such long rope which may render the law of limitation nugatory as if it signifies nothing. 10. It may also be observed that so far as the inherent merits of the cause is concerned all the issues relating to the merits of the case could have been raised before the State Commission if the petitioner would have cared to challenge the District Commission’s Order within the prescribed period of limitation provided to file the appeal. If the petitioner was not careful enough or diligent enough to take legal recourse within the prescribed period of time, non-else is to blame. In the matter at hand, the delay involved is not of days of weeks but is an admitted delay of 625 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The District Commission had passed its Order on 06.05.2022 while the appeal was filed before the State Commission in the year 2024. In order to bridge up such a huge gap it would require very convincing, credible and genuine explanations which may go to vindicate such long hiatus which separates the date of passing of the Order by the District Commission and the date when the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The onus was on the defaulting petitioner to have put forward such factual circumstances before the State Commission relying upon which the delay could have been condoned. The Bench feels constrained to observe that the petitioner has not been able discharge its onus at all and could satisfy neither the State Commission nor this Bench about sufficiency of cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 11. The impugned Order passed by the State Commission is a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing it here all over again. Suffice is to say that the Bench finds the Order passed by the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The Bench also does not notice any material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. The Bench therefore finds no good ground for interference in the impugned Order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The Bench has also not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings nor has it been able to discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled. Certainly the State Commission cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed its jurisdiction or to have omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to our satisfaction. 12. The present petition being bereft of merits stands dismissed as such. 13. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their respective learned counsels for the parties as well as to the two fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days. | 
