(Delivered on 24/09/2021 )

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Appellants/Complainants   in  appeal Nos.  A/20/11, A/20/12, A/20/13, A/20/14, A/20/15, A/20/16, A/20/17 and A/20/18 have preferred the present appeals feeling aggrieved  by the  separate orders  passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint  Nos.  CC/159/2015, CC/156/2015, CC/157/2015, CC/208/2015, CC/206/2015, CC/158/2015, CC/205/2015 and CC/207/2015 passed on 06/02/2019. Along with  the appeals the appellants  have  also filed applications  for condonation of delay  in filing  the appeals.  Appellants  have contended  that they have  received  the copy of impugned orders dated 06/02/2019 on 20/02/2019.  They were  waiting  for  the period of 6 months for execution  of sale deed  by the O.Ps./respondents as per the direction given  by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur but  there was no response from the O.Ps./respondents.  Appellants have contended that  in the 3^rd week of September,2019 the  appellants  contacted their  advocate and so they  handed over the papers  to their  advocate but there was delay of 221 days in preferring the appeals.  Appellants have contended that  the delay  of 221 days  was not deliberate  or willful  but  beyond   the control of the  appellants and so the delay of 221 days may be condoned.

2.         Respondents have appeared and filed their reply strongly resisting the contents in the applications for condonation of delay. Respondents have contended that the appellants contended that they were waiting  for execution of sale deed  was false  and erroneous.  Respondents have taken  every steps  to get sale deed executed.  Appellants have not given any specific or satisfactory  reason  for delay of 221 days  and reason given  for condonation  was not satisfactory at all.  Applications  for condonation of delay filed by the appellants is also not bonafide  and  so the applications  deserve to be  rejected.

3.         I have heard Mr. Ravikant Pande, learned advocate for the appellants. It is submitted  by the  learned advocate  for the appellants  that  sole reason  for delay of 221 days was because  the appellants were  waiting  for 6 months for execution of sale deed after passing  of order on 06/02/2019. I have also heard  advocate for the  appellants and respondents on this aspect  and also gone through  the  applications. Admittedly, the appellants were  the original  complainants in complaint Nos. CC/159/2015, CC/156/2015, CC/157/2015, CC/208/2015, CC/206/2015, CC/158/2015, CC/205/2015 and CC/207/2015. If really  the appellants were  aggrieved  by the impugned order  dated 06/02/2019 then the appellants  were under obligation  to prefer the appeals within  the period of 30 days from the receipt  of copy of order on 20/02/2019 but the appellants  have filed the appeals  after delay of 221 days. Ground is  taken  by the appellants  that they were waiting  for the period  of 6 months for execution  of sale deed but in my view the same cannot be a satisfactory ground for condonation of delay at all. It is needless to mention that the appellants have to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner and delay has to be bonafide. Obviously the reason mentioned by the appellants for delay of 221 days cannot be termed as satisfactory or bonafide. As such applications for condonation of delay filed by the appellants are hereby dismissed. Consequently appeals are dismissed. .