M/S RAJESH BRICK FIELD Vs. RAM NARESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 23.08.2011, the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dismissed the appeal in default, filed by M/s.Rajesh Brick Field & Anr. The order passed by the learned State Commission is reproduced hereunder :-

(2.) Thereafter, the revision petition was filed before this Commission on 30.08.2012, i.e. after a elapse of more than a year. The petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the Petitioners came to know about this case when they got the recovery challan issued by the District Forum to the District Magistrate, Gonda, on 18.04.2012. They searched for Advocate, but could not find him. In this respect, the following averments were made in the application:

(3.) The petitioner has failed to name the so-called highly paid fee Advocate. The affidavit of that Advocate also did not see the light of the day. No complaint was filed against that Advocate who appears to have taken high fee but did not care to pursue the matter. Such like stories can be created at any time. This has become a fashion with the litigants to blame the Advocate in order to save their own skin. There should be some evidence in respect of the allegations made against the Advocate. The above said story does not constitute a good ground for condoning the delay. It is also noteworthy that no reason was given by the petitioners for their non-appearance before the State Commission on 23.11.2011. The record also reveals that the opposite party s counsel was present before the State Commission. It is surprising to note that the petitioner did not care to know about the fate of his case prior to 23.08.2011, upto April, 2012, when the execution petition was filed against them.