Balina Ramulamma vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THERE is a delay of 489 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has explained the delay in para 3 of the application moved for condonation of delay, which is hereby reproduced as under: "That the petitioners Advocate received the copy of the State Commission order on 25.02.2011 and thereafter it was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner decided to file the revision before this Hon ''ble Forum for which he sought all the other relevant documents relating to the case from the Advocate at Hyderabad. The Advocate ''s office had misplaced the file during the shifting of their office and the office promised they will try to trace the same and after repeated requests to apply for fresh copy from the commission, they applied for a copy and it was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner forwarded the same to the Advcoate at Delhi who sought certain other documents for the clear understanding of the case. After receipt of the said documents, the Advocate prepared the present petition and forwarded it to petitioner who signed the Affidavit, where after the present petition is being filed."

FROM the above said averments, it is clear that these grounds do not constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay. The name of the Advocate at Hyderabad was not mentioned. Such like story can be created at any time. The name of Advocate at Delhi was also not mentioned. The affidavits from the advocates did not see the light of the day. There is a huge delay and case is hopelessly barred by time. 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 Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ".

In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section

IF ''sufficient cause '' is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If ''sufficient cause '' is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. " 5. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] "

The Hon ''ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that: "Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay."

RECENTLY , this Commission presided over by Hon ''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of delay and the delay of 104 days was not condoned, vide reference in case "Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and Anr. " [Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012]. See the law laid down in R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhaveneshwari, I (2009) SLT 188(SC)= I(2009) SLT 701 = 2009 (2) Scale 108. Also see the law laid down in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC). In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.