JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Counsel for the petitioners present. Costs stand paid.

2.      This common order shall decide above said five revision petitions wherein the petitioners are the same and the respondents-complainants are flat owners.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner heard at the time of admission.  The petitioner had filed first appeals before the State Commission.  There was delay of 46 days in filing the first appeals.  The State Commission condoned the delay.  Warning bells should have rung and present revision petitions should have been filed within time.  However, there is delay of 73 days each  in filing the revision petitions.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay in each case. 

4.      The petitioners have explained the delay in following manners. The State Commission decided the case on 18.12.2013.  The petitioners received the free copy of the judgment on 4.1.2014.  The petitioners are the residents of Mumbai. One of the petitioner namely –Mr. Felix Sylvester Sequeira called his counsel at Karnataka and the counsel advised on 22.1.2014 to file a revision petition.  His counsel at Mumbai also advised in the same manner.  Thereafter, a search for an advocate was continued in Delhi and after extensive search, he approached a counsel in Delhi.  All the documents were in possession of the local counsel in Mangalore, Karnataka.  The petitioner contacted the counsel in Mangalore. The documents were sent to the counsel at Delhi.  In the meantime, the wife of the petitioner was not in good medical condition.  The petitioner was also not well.  The Counsel at Delhi objected that the documents were illegible.  Legible documents were provided and all these facts took 90 days prescribed period plus 73 days total being 163 days. 

5.      Medical certificates of the petitioner and his wife did not see the light of the day.  These certificates were not filed alongwith the revision petition.  This is an age of mobiles when one can contact the counsel in a jiffy.  Day to day delay was never explained.  The petitioner has not mentioned how many sons, brothers and other relations he has got.  If the documents are in Bangalore, they can be sent through speed post, courier etc. and the same could reach Delhi within a period of 4-5 days.  It has not been mentioned from which date the petitioner and his wife remained in the hospital. It was also not mentioned in which hospital they remain admitted.

6.      Such like story can be created at any time.  The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days because the petitioner had failed to produce the medical certificate. 

7.      Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013.  Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of  Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.

8.      At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a medical certificate dated 12.5.2014 which mentions that the petitioner - Mr. Felix Sylvester Sequeira was suffering from chronic gastritis and intermittent chest pain and accelerated hypertension since 2.2.2014.  This certificate is not reliable.  No prescription of 2.2.2014 was produced before us.  This does not appear to be a genuine certificate.  What kind of medicine was given to him is not specified.  This Bench consists of one member who is M.D. (Hon’ble Dr. S. M. Kantikar) and he is aware all these medicines.  The material facts have been suppressed.  It is also difficult to fathom as to how a doctor can issue such like certificate after a lapse of more than 3 months and without any proof. 

9.      The Ld. Counsel for petitioners did not state a word, syllable or whisper about the remaining petitioners.

10.    The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay.   It must be borne in mind that time of disposal of complaints, revision petitions, appeals is fixed by the Act itself. 

11.    This view neatly dovetails with the Supreme Court authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009)

CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221.

12.    The revision petitions are barred by time.

13.    Now let us turn to the merits of these cases.  Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention towards para 11 of the complaint where it is mentioned that the cause of action had arisen on 11.11.2011.

14.    We are unable to locate any substance in this faint argument.  The completion certificate has not yet been given to the complainants.  The cause of action continues till the completion certificate is handed over to the flat owners/complainants.  Consequently, these cases are within time. 

15.    Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that they are ready to comply with all the reliefs granted by the State Commission except ‘C’ & ‘D”. 

16.    We are not impressed by his arguments.  The petitioner has to hand over the possession and other facilities as per the agreement entered into between the parties. This argument itself smacks of malafides on the part of the petitioners.

17.    All the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.  However, the concerned authority is directed to issue the completion certificate as early as possible as per Law and if it is not possible and Law is disobeyed, the petitioners should initiate the action against the concerned authorities.  The For a below have nowhere missed the wood for the trees.  We add our voice with them and dismiss the Revision Petitions.