AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.
THERE is delay of 477 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay, which is as under: "2.That the Hon''ble State Commission had passed the impugned final judgment and order on 09.01.2013. The period prescribed for filing the revision under the Act is 90 days. It is submitted that due to bona fide and unintentional reasons, which were beyond the control of the petitioner, the delay has occurred in filing the present Revision Petition. After the dismissal of the First Appeal by the Hon''ble State Commission, the petitioner could not decide as to whether he should approach this Hon''ble Commission or to accept the order of the Hon''ble State Commission. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner consulted his lawyer before the Hon''ble State Commission and also sought opinion from other counsels and finally made up his mind to prefer the revision petition before this Hon''ble Commission. The petitioner co -operative society is run by its management, which took time seek approval and initiate steps for filing the revision petition. The petitioner arranged all the documents, most of which were in vernacular. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the lawyer at Delhi who prepared the Revision Petition. Upon completion of further modalities in finalizing the Revision Petition, the annexure and other documents have been given for translation and the Revision Petition now being ready, is filed. The delay in preferring the Revision Petition is neither intentional or deliberate.
SKIMBLE scamble explanation given by the petitioner does not satisfy us at all. We have also seen the judgment rendered by the State Commission. The petitioner/opposite party, Chairman, Balsagar Co -op Housing Society Limited, Nashik wants to approach the problem in a lackadaisical manner. Such like pleas can be raised at any time. No sufficient ground has been given. The case is hopelessly barred by time. This view finds support from the Supreme Court authority in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
THE Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and 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. Board & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
THE case is hopelessly barred by time. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.