HUDA Vs. SUPREME SYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-The appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1.10.2008. Application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 7.9.2009, i.e., after nearly one year. The State Commission dismissed the application for restoration because of the callous and lethargic action taken by the petitioner.

(2.) THE appeal had been fixed for 1.10.2008 for hearing in the presence of Counsel for the petitioner. On 1.10.2008, Counsel for the petitioner did not appear. It took nearly one year to the petitioner to move an application for recall of the order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and restoration of the appeal. On a query put to the Counsel for the petitioner, as to what was the reason for delay in moving the application for restoration of the appeal before the State Commission, the reply given is that it was due to administrative reasons. In my considered view, the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in moving the application seeking restoration of the appeal. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal.

(3.) APART from this, this revision petition has been filed, with a delay of 107 days which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given for filing the revision petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Consumer Fora are required to decide the case in a summary manner within 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where the evidence is required to be taken. In the present case, the inordinate delay of 107 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given in the application is that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to administrative reasons. Petitioner has not shown any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Delay of each day has to be explained which the petitioner has failed to do. I am not satisfied with the cause shown. Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.