AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THERE is inordinate delay in filing this revision petition by 768 days. The revision petition was filed in the year 2011 but somehow learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear and therefore, the delay in deciding this revision petition was caused due to the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on various dates. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has explained the delay that firstly Mohamed Yasuf, petitioner, was diagnosed as coronary artery disease in 2007. Since then the petitioner is on regular follow up and needs long term treatment as per the medical certificate issued by Associate Professor and unit No. 2 Head Department of Cardiology, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. The impugned order was announced on 22.7.2009. Consequently, he could not file the revision petition and there is a delay of 768 days in filing the revision petition. However, according to the registry, there is delay of 678 days. The petitioner has filed on record the medical certificate issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal dated June, 21, 2001 which runs as follows: - " June 21, 2011 To WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mr. Mohammed Yousuf, 69 years, Hospital No. 01773700 was diagnosed as coronary artery disease in 2007. Since then he is on regular follow -up and needs long term treatment for the same. Sd/ - Dr. Tom Devasia, MD, DM Associate Professor and Unit II Head Department of Cardiology Kasturba Hospital, Manipal -576104"
IT is explained that the application for getting the certified copy was moved on 1.8.2009. The petitioner did not receive the copy of the order from his counsel due to slip shot and engagement in his legal profession. He forgot to intimate about the status of appeal. The petitioner was under the impression that the appeal was still pending. In August, 2011, the petitioner made inquiry and it transpired that the order was passed by the State Commission on 22.7.2009. The office collected all the documents through Shri G. A. Anthony Cruze, Advocate of Bangalore. The petitioner used to contact his counsel at Bangalore and used to have telephonic conversations but the counsel represented him due to his profession engagement he could not intimate the status report of his case. It is contended that delay on the part of the petitioner is bona fide. It is also explained that SLP (civil) No. 17758 -17759 of 2008 is pending before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 21.4.2010 dismissed the said SLP filed by the department. The said case is reported in 1995(6) SCC page 614. It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court condoned the delay of 30 years in filing the SLP considering the merits of that case. The reference was also made to the celebrated authority in Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 and other authorities reported in Rafiq vs. Munshilal and another, 1981 AIR(SC) 1400 Abdul Ghafoor and Anr. vs. State of Bihar,2011 8 SLT 700 and N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 7 SCC 123.
WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said arguments. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The name of the Advocate who is responsible for the delay was not clearly disclosed. It was also not stated that if any action was taken against the said advocate. No legal notice etc. against the said Advocate saw the light of the day. It had become very convenient to shift the blame on the advocates. It is the duty of every litigant to post himself on each date of hearing. However, due to some ailment one person cannot go to the office of his advocate. He must send somebody on his behalf or telephone or through postal communication himself must know the then status of his case. The version that he could not know about the status for this case for a period of 2 years cannot be believed. It clearly goes to show that the petitioner was himself negligent and inactive. It has become fashion with the litigants to excuse the advocate without any rhyme and reason and in their absence.
THE above said certificate issued by the Doctor is vague, evasive and leads the court nowhere. The petitioner should have produced day to day or at least month to month prescriptions. All these facts and circumstances cast a flim of doubt over doctor''s bona fides. There is no evidence that the petitioner was ever admitted in the Hospital. He has produced the certificate dated 21.6.2011 which mentioned about his disease in the year 2007. Such like certificates have got no value in the eyes of law. Such like certificate can be issued at any time. The doctor could not have issued such like certificate. The doctor is not supposed to discuss the disease which has occurred 4 -5 years before the relevant time.
THE various authorities go to embolden the above said view.
IN the celebrated authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 , 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 Balwant Singh (Dead) 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."
SEE also the law laid down in Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.,2012 STPL 132 .
IN other case, titled as "Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and Anr." Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012., the Bench of this Commission headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, has rejected the explanation that the file was moving from table to table to get the permission to file that appeal. It was further held that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led then within 150 days. The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days.
IN Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 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 5. 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."
IN Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain, 1993 1 RLR 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer''s office and enquired about the case, especially when the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent. The statute also prescribes a time bound programme regarding the deposit to be made.
IN Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies,2000 3 PunLR 83, it was observed that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.
IN Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 2 RajLW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has he did send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.
IT is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se, negligence of a litigant''s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. See M/s. Chawala and Co. Vs. Felicity Rodrigues,1971 ACJ 92.
THE above said case is hopelessly barred by time. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition on the ground of its being time barred.