PFIZER LIMITED vs Gopi Krishan Atri

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner present. The respondent has received the litigation costs and dasti notice but none is present on his behalf. The respondent is properly served.

THERE is delay of 1698 days in filing the revision petition. An application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has been filed. The delay has been explained in paras 4,5 and 6 of the application, which are reproduced as under: "4. That it was only when the Appellant/Revisionist herein received a notice from the Learned District Forum with regard to Execution Petition filed by the Respondent/complainant, and upon subsequent enquiries being made, that the Appellant/Revisionist became aware about the factum of above -mentioned dismissal of the appeal.

That since the erstwhile advocate for the Appellant/Revisionist neither provided any information about the above -mentioned appeal to the appellant/Revisionist, nor did he supply the Appellant/Revisionist with the relevant case papers, the Appellant/Revisionist engaged another advocate to carry out necessary inspection of the case record and procure copies of the relevant documents. Upon receipt of the said documents, the present petition has been promptly prepared, after seeking relevant information.

That after becoming aware of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant''s/revisionist''s counsel applied for the certified copy of the Impugned order only after the Appellant/revisionist, on 9 April, 2014, received the notice of the Execution Petition filed by the Respondent/Complainant. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the counsel for the Appellant/Revisionist appeared before Learned District Forum on the date specified in the notice for the Execution Petition, however, owing to Lok Sabha election in the Muzaffarnagar area, staff of the Learned District Forum were deputed in the duties of election, therefore, the Learned District Forum adjourned the matter for 26th May, 2014. Thereafter, the counsel for the Appellant/Revisionist went to the Hon''ble State Commission to obtain certified copies of the documents, however, it was intimated by the concerned official of the Hon''ble State Consumer Commission, that it is an old matter and the records of the old matters have been shifted to some other places therefore, it will take time to get the same."

THERE is huge delay of about four to five years in filling the revision petition. The blame has been put on the advocate, which appears to be false because it has become a fashion to put the blame on the advocates, which is nothing but a ruse so that the application may be accepted. 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 the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. The day to day delay was not explained.

THE following authorities neatly dovetail with our view. 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 inquired about the case.

IN Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, 2000 126 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 did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.

AFTER lapse of 6 years, they have filed the revision petition and uptil now they have not taken any action against the advocate. No complaint was made before the Bar Council of India. Even the name of the advocate was not disclosed. The arguments coming forth at this late stage are frivolous and vexatious.

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. and Area Dev. Boa and Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.

SIMILAR view was taken in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63, 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).

THEREFORE , the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, therefore, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.