HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NISHU TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) District Forum had directed the present petitioner to pay interest? 12% p.a. on the amount lying deposited with it by the complainant with reference to Plot No. 1499, Sector-12, Sonepat. The interest was ordered to paid with effect from 1998 till the delivery of the actual possession of the said plot to the complainant. The petitioner was directed to deliver actual possession after developing the area in question and further to pay a sum of Rs.2,000 towards mental agony, harassment and offer of possession and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission by filing appeal. Before the State Commission it was represented by the complainant that possession of the plot had already been handed over by the petitioner as also cheque dated 20.8.2006 for a sum of Rs. 61,544. Counsel for the present petitioner before the State Commission stated that balance amount of Rs. 25,000 can be withdrawn by the complainant which had been deposited by the present petitioner. In the light of the above, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) Alongwith the revision, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay is of 98 days in filing the revision. The reasons given for delay in filing the revision in this case are verbatim same except for change of dates as are found in R.P. No.3827 of 2010 filed by the petitioner wherein also condonation of 96 days delay is sought. We have noticed that the petitioner invariably files revisions with delay and same standard stereotype explanation is offered every time. In our opinion, the reasons for delay mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are not sufficient so as to condone delay. The revision is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Besides. The State Commission refused to interfere since the order of the District Forum had already been complied with in August, 2006. In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain this revision and revision is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Legal-Aid Account of this Commission within six weeks, failing which, no revision of the petitioner shall be entertained by this Commission.