VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs SHARADA CHANDRASEKHARA

THE challenge in this Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated the 1st January, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Karnataka, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner herein on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Revision Petitioner had filed an application before the State Commission for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and that petition was also rejected by the State Commission as per the order impugned before us.

THE Order of the District Forum which was sought to be challenged by the Revision Petitioner herein in the appeal filed by him before the State Commission was dated 4.5.1993. The memorandum of appeal was actually filed before the State Commission only on 21.12.1993. There was a delay of more than six months in filing the said appeal. In the impugned order the State Commission has given detailed reasons as to why it did not find it possible to accept the explanation tendered by the appellant for the inordinate delay. It is pointed out by the State Commission that the averment contained in the Affidavit filed before it did not disclose as to on what date the appellant had received the certified copy of the order of the District Forum and the date on which he handed over such certified copy to his advocate for preferring the appeal. The State Commission has further stated that excepting for a vague averment that the Advocate was busy with his daughter''s marriage, no particulars were furnished as to the date on which the daughter''s marriage of the appellant''s advocate was to be performed. From the materials produced before it, the State Commission gathered that the impugned order of the District Forum had reached to the hands of the Advocate for the appellant in the month of October, 1993, whereas the marriage ceremony of his daughter was performed only in first week of December, 1993. Certain other aspects have also been discussed and relied on by the State Commission for coming to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the appellant for the long delay in institution of the appeal was wholly insufficient and unacceptable and the delay could not, therefore, be condoned. Notwithstanding the persuasive arguments advanced before us by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, we are unable to find any ground justifying interference by us with the order so passed by the State Commission in the exercise of its discretion. It cannot be said that the passing the impugned order, the State Commission has acted without jurisdiction or with any material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this Revision Petition has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.