BALINA RAMULAMMA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 489 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has explained the delay in para 3 of the application moved for condonation of delay, which is hereby reproduced as under:

(2.) From the above said averments, it is clear that these grounds do not constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay. The name of the Advocate at Hyderabad was not mentioned. Such like story can be created at any time. The name of Advocate at Delhi was also not mentioned. The affidavits from the advocates did not see the light of the day. There is a huge delay and case is hopelessly barred by time. The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.

(3.) In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".