vs GAUTAM SINHA

Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.

There is delay of 156 days in filing this revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been moved. The delay has been explained in paras No. 1 and 2 of the application, which are reproduced as under: "1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the final impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2015, being MJC NO. 14/2015, passed by the Hon''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (M.P.)

wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected to recall the order dated 24.03.2015 thereby stating that the Consumer Forum being the special statutory court does not have any review jurisdiction or/and such power of civil Court. And the petitioner is also preferred to challenge the order dated 24.03.2015 in appeal No. 234/2014 passed by the Hon''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (M.P.) wherein the counsel of the petitioner without any due instruction from the petitioner withdrew the appeal......."

"2. That it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed Revision Petition against the order dated 24.03.2015 before the Hon''ble State Commission and the same was pending before the Hon''ble Commission, therefore, matter was not challenged before this Hon''ble Commission."

There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that review petition can be filed before the State Commission. The Supreme Court of India as back as, in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541 has clarified this question. It is, therefore, clear that the counsel for the petitioner did not have the knowledge of law. The delay cannot be condoned on such like frivolous grounds. The day-to-day delay has not been explained. The review petition was dismissed on 6.10.2015. The petitioner should have filed the revision petition immediately and thereafter the petitioner took further more than 60 days to file this revision petition.

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. 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.

This view neatly dovetails with the following 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.

The case is hopelessly barred by time.

Now, we turn to the merits of this revision petition. The impugned order dated 24.3.2015 runs as follows: "Shri Avinash Katyayani, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard.

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw this appeal with a prayer that he may be permitted to raise the objections with respect to the price of the plot before the Executing court.

On perusal of the operative part of the impugned order, we find that the apprehensions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been made clear in the 2 part of para 11 of the impugned order. nd In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel is permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to raise appropriate objections before the Executing Court.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. "

Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that petitioner did not have the instructions from his client. We do not find any force in this argument and the advocate, who appears, is supposed to have all the binding powers.

In the case of Naeeru Chawla vs. Indu Chopra, SLP No. 25856 of 2014, decided on 25.08.2014, the order of National Commission, consisting of three members Bench, in first appeal No. 387 of 2013 decided on 1.8.2013 was confirmed by Hon''ble Supreme Court. In that case, it was held: "State Commission has passed the order based on the concession made by the counsel Mr. Puneet Singh. Counsel appearing for the appellant today in court very fairly admits that Puneet Singh was engaged by the appellant. Since Puneet Singh was engaged as counsel for the appellant, he had a right to make a statement and we have no doubt that he had made such concession after taking instructions. Since order has been passed by the State Commission on concession made by the counsel for the appellant, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed."

Against this order of National Commission, an SLP(C)No. 25856 of 2014 was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed that SLP vide order dated 25.8.2014.

Similar view was taken in DCM Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Saini and Ors., SLP (C) No. 4081 of 2013 decided on 01.02.2013, Satyanarayan Shrikrishan Kalantri vs. Asstt. Eng. Maharasthra State Elec. Dist. Co. Ltd, SLP (C) No. 37328-29 of 2013 decided on 22.11.2013 and Kalpana Roy vs. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport, SLP ? No. 5783 of 2015 decided on 23.02.2015.

The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.