BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK vs ASHOK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

PETITIONER was the appellant before the State Commission and opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The District Forum vide its order dated 6.5.2005 had allowed the complaint against which an appeal was filed with a delay of about 2 months. The State Commission did not find sufficient grounds for condoning the delay, hence had dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

UNDISPUTEDLY, there is a delay of 120 days in filing this revision petition before us as well. We have very carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay. The delay is attributed to the non-performance on the part of the Counsel. As we see the order of the State Commission passed on 29.8.2005 and a certified copy of the order was issued to the petitioner on 7.9.2005. If the Counsel was responsible for delay in informing the petitioner then what was the Law Office of the said Co-operated Bank doing? especially when it would have been within his knowledge that the appeal was entertained by the State Commission and dismissed by it as barred by limitation on 29.8.2005. A mere perusal of the application of condonation of delay makes a very miserable reading and the cavalier passion in which the whole thing has been handled - delay in processing the file, meshing up with some other files, etc. We do not find sufficient grounds to condone the delay. In our view the petitioner has not shown sufficient grounds for condonation of delay before the State Commission as also before us by way of filing this application before us for condonation of delay. In the aforementioned circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.