RAJEEV ARORA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANOJ Kumar, complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission against Sh. Rajeev Arora, CMD, OP on 01.11.2011. The OP was preceded against ex -parte due to his non -appearance on 13.03.2012. Order passed by the State Commission i.e. impugned order dated 13.03.2012 runs as follows: -

(2.) THE service of the OP for 13.03.2012 was not denied. The case of the petitioner/OP is that proxy counsel appeared on 28.05.2012 and filed Vakalatnama and the case was adjourned for 18.09.2012. But due to inadvertent mistake, the Steno pasted order sheet on Internet mentioning the next date of hearing as 28.09.2012 instead of 18.09.2012. On 28.09.2012, OP reached the Court and there it transpired that the case was listed on 18.09.2012 and adjourned to final ex -parte arguments on 27.11.2012. It also transpired that as a matter of fact the OP was preceded against ex -parte on 13.03.2012 on account of non -appearance. In the Revision petition, it is prayed that the ex -parte order should be set -aside and the OP should be allowed to participate and defend the case on merits in the interest of justice.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. There is inordinate delay in moving this application of 130 days. Even the name of the previous counsel was not disclosed. No complaint was made against the said counsel. No explanation is coming as to why the previous counsel did not inform the OP that he was proceeded against ex -parte. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the service on the OPs was effected in the month of January 2012. The petitioner did not appear before the State Commission deliberately on 13.03.2012. He slept over the matter and approached the court on 18.09.2012. It is not possible that State Commission would have given such a long date. The petitioner has failed to explain the day to day delay from the date of service till 19.10.2012 when this revision petition was filed. The explanation given by him in the application for condonation of delay makes neither head nor tail. The namby pamby pleas raised in the application leads the Court nowhere. The version that even on 18.05.2012 the proxy counsel could not come to know that petitioner was proceeded against ex -parte is not worthy of belief.