JAIN BUILDERS Vs. KASHIBEN B THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is hopelessly time barred and, therefore, has to be dismissed on that ground alone. The appellants are the original opposite parties in Complaint No.81/95 on the file of the Central Mumbai District Forum. The complainant filed the complaint for recovery of certain amounts from the present appellant/original opposite parties. On filing of the complaint, the Forum issued the process as required under the statute to the present appellant and since there was no response, as many as 4 reminders were sent which is mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order. The District Forum records as under : "the notice dated 17.4.1996 was served on the opponent to file their written version returnable on 17.6.1996 but the opponent remained absent. Thereafter, notices dated 18.6.1996, 16.8.1996, 18.12.1996, and 5.4.1997 were sent to the opponent, but the opponent never appeared before the Forum, i. e. the opponent has been persistently absent. Thus, no written statement on record and the case is not contested by the opponent. "

(2.) Thus it will be noticed that opposite parties/present appellants were duly served and thereafter, subsequently reminded on 4 occasions.

(3.) The appeal has been filed on 22.4.1998 with the application for condonation of delay. We have perused the said application, as also ground No.3 in the appeal memo. The only ground made by the appellants is that they did not receive the initial process as also subsequent reminders of the Forum, as they had changed their address and the process as also the reminders were sent to their old address. However, the said plea is not sustainable, since the learned Counsel for the respondent has shown us the postal acknowledgement receipt, where it is noticed that on 30.9.1996, the process sent to the appellants at the same address as mentioned in the complaint was received by them. Furthermore, in ground No.5, the appellants admit having received the letter dated 4th February, 1998 addressed by the District Forum to them about the passing of the impugned order in the complaint. Even appellant becoming aware of the order of the Forum on 4.2.1998, the appeal has been filed on 22.4.1998. Thus, it will be noticed that despite the knowledge of passing of the order, the appellant did not approach the Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed time. Therefore, no delay has been explained at all and the appeal is, therefore, hopelessly time barred and on that ground only, the appeal stands dismissed. Order "appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the cost to the respondent/original complainant, quantified at Rs.3,000/-. Interim stay granted on 19.6.1998, stands vacated after a period of two weeks from today. "