This is an application filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 333 days in filing the petition for review of the judgment and order dated 29-8-2016 passed in F.A. 39/2013 by this Commission.

          Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

          Ms. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant has submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances as stated at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application, the delay occurred in filing the petition for review of the judgment and order dated 29-8-2016 passed by this Commission in F.A. 39/2013, may be condoned for the ends of justice.

          Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application being relevant, are quoted here-in-below;-

          “4. That the petitioner company begs to state that on 19-10-2016 the company received the certified copy of the aforesaid case along with the opinion. After receipt of the judgment, the dealing Officer got promoted and transfer  to other office and because of this the file remained unattended and mixed with the old files. On 17-8-2016, the file of the aforesaid case was came out and thereafter it was processed at the appropriate level and the competent authority decided to file review against the judgment and order and handed over the file to one of its panel Advocate on 24-8-2017 and the Advocate took some time to prepare the same and filed at the earliest.

          5. That the applicant states that in the aforesaid circumstances, the period of limitation for filing of the appeal has expired on 28-9-2016 from the date of the judgment and order. It is stated there has been 333 days delay in preferring the review and the delay occurred is not intentional rather has occasioned owing to observance of necessary official formalities and as such, the applicant was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing the review in time.”

        The settled proposition of law with regard to condonation of delay is that the delay must be explained with sufficient reasons to enable the Court to condone the same. The Hon’ble Apex Court, time and again, has been observing that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigours prescribed by the statute and the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In a decision in P.K. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under-

“6-Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigours when the statute so prescribed and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable ground. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay can not be sustained.”  

           After going through the contents at paragraphs 4 and 5 above, stated to be sufficient cause and/or adequate explanation for condonation of delay, it would reveal that the applicant has miserably failed to substantiate the statements made in the said paragraphs by producing any documentary evidence as to why the matter could not be dealt with promptly.

In light of the facts and law stated above, we are constrained to hold that the applicant has not been able to make out a case showing sufficient cause to condone the delay of 333 days in preferring review petition.

        In view of the same, we are of the opinion that we cannot condone such a long delay on the part of the applicant, specially when there is no proper explanation for delay of 333 days. Hence, the instant application deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do.

        Misc Case is accordingly dismissed.