CITIBANK N.A. Vs. GHATTY CHAYA PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant on the ground that it was delayed by 214 days. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not filed the copy of application for condonation of delay which was filed before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the reasons given in the impugned order are correct. The delay has been explained in para 1 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the petitioner has been bona fide. He argued that due to inadvertence of the counsel, the appeal could not be filed in time.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority reported in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy JT 1988 (6) SC 242, para 14 of the which as under: "14. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put -forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guidance that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for the loss. (Emphasis supplied)